Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Bank of England

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Ms Diane Abbott: The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the independence of the Bank of England on interest rates had such a rapturous welcome that it is with some diffidence that I rise to attempt to put a reasoned case against that independence.
The universal acclaim from pundits, commentators and the rest of the chattering classes with which independence for the Bank was greeted reminded me of nothing so much as the universal acclaim that greeted our entry into the exchange rate mechanism some years ago—and we all know what happened to that.
I must begin by saying that, of course, everybody on both sides of in the House is in favour of the lowest possible inflation. There can be no dispute about that. Yet I shall argue against independence, for the following reasons.
First, we cannot decouple economic management from politics. Secondly, the academic arguments for an independent central bank are built on sand, intellectually. Thirdly, the idea is fundamentally undemocratic. Finally, it would mean taking risks with growth and jobs. I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the country, with one of the highest levels of unemployment, so the House will understand that, ultimately, my concern is about growth and jobs.
There can be no doubt that independent central banks are the fashionable thing, not only with British commentators and pundits but internationally. Since the late 1980s, more than 25 countries, from France to Kazakhstan and from New Zealand to Pakistan, have opted for independent central banks, so there is no doubt that the Chancellor is in the vanguard of fashion.
However, with some reluctance, I must tell the House that there is a gaping chasm between what economic theory suggests central bank independence might do and what the empirical evidence shows it can do. Despite the universal assumption among journalists and some of my hon. Friends that an independent central bank necessarily leads to low inflation, the academic research suggests that, although there may be a statistical relationship between central bank independence and low inflation, no causal relationship can be established.
That point is so important that the House will forgive me if I linger for a few minutes on the academic arguments. In 1993, the Treasury Select Committee conducted a major inquiry into the idea of independence for the Bank of England. Our report records that our then specialist adviser, Andrew Wood, reviewing the academic literature, concluded:
Some general conclusions can be drawn from this review of the literature:—there is a statistical relationship showing that on average countries with independent central banks achieve lower inflation than countries with dependent central banks. There is no conclusive statistical evidence of a causal relationship between the status of the central bank and the inflation performance".
Yet—

Mr. Giles Radice: My hon. Friend has mentioned the Select Committee report. Would it not be fair to point out that the Committee came out in favour of the model proposed by the Chancellor? There was a Conservative majority on the Committee, but all Labour members—with the exception of my hon. Friend—also voted in favour.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—with whom I have served with pleasure on the Select Committee for years—for reminding the House that my opposition to bank independence is not short term, but a long-standing position.
Let us look briefly at some of the academic evidence, at the risk of wearying some hon. Members. A major study—which is always quoted by the proponents of independence—was carried out in 1996 by Sylvester Eijffinger and Jacob de Haan, who looked at 20 different studies of bank independence. Out of 20, 18 showed a link between independence and low inflation. There is no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will call this in aid, as always.
Furthermore, another major study in 1991 by Grilli, Macciandaro and Tabellini showed that the three most independent central banks had the lowest inflation. But that is not the sum total of academic work, although one might believe it is from listening to some of the Eddie George groupies in the House.
There is other and more recent academic work on the subject. I draw the House's attention to the studies of Adam Posen, an economist from the New York Federal Reserve, who said that central bank independence was a consequence of pressure from the financial sector. He said:
Central Bank independence arises from the desires of an interest group—
the financial sector—
that is more committed to price stability than the average voter.
Michael Jenkins of Hull university said in his research on the subject that, if one factors out other structural factors tending to low inflation—for instance, the corporatist wage bargaining of West Germany—there is no statistically significant relationship between higher central bank independence and low inflation. Gerard Lyons, chief economist of the Japanese bank DKB, has said that the evidence that bank independence guarantees low inflation is slim. In 1993, Blake and Westway said that a central bank pursuing its own goals with no regard for the social welfare function is frequently harmful.
The first point I am anxious to make is that, just because central bank independence is associated with low inflation—I do not deny that—does not mean that it causes low inflation. That is the weakness of the argument used by my hon. Friends who are in favour of independence. I maintain something different—that, contrary to popular belief, an independent central bank does not create a culture of low inflation, but is a reflection of a culture of low inflation. The distinction may seem pedantic or trifling to some of my hon. Friends, but it is the key distinction.
When people come to argue for an independent central bank, they always pray in aid the Bundesbank and Germany's economic record, and there is no doubt that the Bundesbank is the Arnold Schwarzenegger of monetarism. The Bundesbank has practised a form of macro-monetarism for longer than any of us here can remember. The classic statement of the Bundesbank's position was given by Karl Blessing, its president, in 1966, when he said:
There can be no hard currency without hard measures.
Let us linger on the German case, which proponents of independence always cite. The belief that the fact that Germany has an independent central bank and also has low inflation is an argument for independent central banks elsewhere is a simple case of reverse causality. I put to the House the following proposition—the reasons for Germany having low inflation are much more fundamental, and partly rooted in its history.
I remind the House that, twice in a generation, Germany experienced hyper-inflation—in 1923 and again after the war. In 1922, inflation in Germany was running at 1,300 per cent. No other G7 country has had that experience this century. The mark ended up in 1923 at one trillionth of its 1913 level. It is at the height of this hyper-inflation that we see historically the Nazis' rise to power.
Immediately after the war—and in the ruins of a defeated Germany—the country once again experienced hyper-inflation. Otmar Issing, chief economist of the Bundesbank, has said:
It is no coincidence that it is the Germans with their experience of two hyperinflations in the 20th century who have opted for an independent central bank which is committed to price stability.
There are other structural reasons why Germany has low inflation, one of which is the underlying strength of the German economy this century. Germany has had a strong manufacturing sector, a high savings ratio and strong export performance. That is the real economy of Germany, not some short-term monetary fix leading to a low-inflation environment. I would argue that the academic evidence for an independent central bank is simply not soundly based, and I urge my hon. Friends to go back and review the academic evidence.
One of the problems is that central banks have a history of being deflationary. I shall quote from Labour's 1945 manifesto. I do not want to embarrass colleagues who believe that the party has no history, but the 1945 manifesto reflected this country's experiences of the 1930s. In the 1930s, we had an independent central bank, and its name was Montagu Norman. I sometimes think that my colleagues who favour an independent central bank should get T-shirts saying, "Come back, Montagu Norman—all is forgiven."
In the 1945 manifesto, Labour said about the 1930s:
Great economic blizzards swept the world in these years. The great inter-war slumps were not acts of God or of blind forces. They were the sure and certain result of the concentration of too much economic power in the hands of too few men. These men had only learned how to act in the interest of their own bureaucratically-run private monopolies which may be likened to totalitarian oligarchies within our democratic state. They had and they felt no responsibility to the nation.
Some of my hon. Friends may say, "That was 1945. We are new Labour. What possible relevance does this have to us today?" I would argue that the issue of political accountability and responsibility to the nation is as relevant to the Labour party now as it was in 1945.
In looking at the tendency of central bankers to be deflationary and to overestimate the dangers of inflation, we do not have to look in a crystal ball. I was in the City, talking to some economists with a Japanese bank. They reminded me of the joke that the governor of the Japanese central bank between 1989 and 1995, Mr. Mieno, was voted central bank governor of the year by the Americans for ruining the Japanese economy. He jacked up interest rates relentlessly, and did not reverse the policy quickly enough in a recession. Ultimately, the Japanese Ministry of Finance had to step in in 1992. I hope that it does not come to that in this country.
I do not need to talk about 1945 or about the Japanese in making my case. Sadly, because I am a tremendous admirer of Eddie George—a great and distinguished public servant—I need only talk about the recent history of monetary policy in this country.
In May 1995, the Governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, recommended that interest rates be raised by 0.5 per cent. to meet the inflation target. This view was based in part on the Bank's notorious inflation forecasts, which Mervyn King—who is in charge of these matters—admitted to the Committee had a poor track record, producing overly pessimistic forecasts of inflation. The then Chancellor refused to accept the Governor's advice, because, in his judgment, the economy was slowing sufficiently for the inflation target to be met.
Two years later, we know that the former Chancellor's judgment was correct. I am well aware that he needs no endorsement from me. Whatever we think of the contestants for the Conservative party leadership, he consistently called the economy right more times than Eddie George.
I do not want Eddie George to be hurt by these remarks. There is nothing wrong with central bankers having a deflationary bias—that is what they are for; it is the culture in which they are bred—but history teaches us that they should be under democratic control.
The downside of a central bank is that it is hard to achieve co-ordination of policy, and there are risks to jobs and to growth and the danger of an overvalued pound. It is also almost irreversible. Of the 20 frequently cited studies on central bank independence, only one associates it with growth. Guy Debelle and Stanley Fischer said:
Since 1962, countries with independent central banks have suffered deeper recessions on average than those without.
Mark Hutchison and Carl Walsh found the same in a study of New Zealand. Robert Chote, economics editor of the Financial Times, writing in a personal capacity, said:
People may lose their jobs unnecessarily because Mr. Brown is abdicating responsibility for achieving his inflation to the Bank.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested in the response from


industry since the Chancellor declared the independence of the Bank of England. In my part of the world, the largest industrial region in the north-west, the bosses are backing Labour: in the latest poll of industrialists, 88 per cent. responded in support of the Chancellor. Business confidence has been restored for the first time in many years. That is an independent response to an independent bank system.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would not doubt that that response is to be acclaimed. Our fiscal and industrial policy is helping our domestic economy to take off, and I am sure that she would wish it every success.

Ms Abbott: Of course industry and business are backing Labour—even some Tories are backing Labour—but did my hon. Friend notice the squeals from industry when Eddie George slapped in his first interest rate rise a few days ago? It is one thing to back a policy in principle, but another to back it when the consequences for the pound and for exports become clear.
One of the arguments urged by the proponents of independence is that monetary policy is in some sense different from fiscal policy and public spending. They say that politicians have always played politics with interest rates, so monetary policy should be taken out of their hands. In what way is monetary policy different from and more important than fiscal policy and public spending? In fact, politicians have been more apt to play politics with taxation and public spending decisions than with monetary policy.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Abbott: I think that I had better get on, as some of my hon. Friends want to speak.
On the basis of the argument that monetary policy is too important to leave to politicians, why do not we simply sub-contract the entire economy to Goldman Sachs? Sir Bryan Hopkin and Sir Douglas Wass, in evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in 1993, said:
It is not desirable, or indeed even possible, to earmark particular instruments to particular objectives as if they had no wider repercussions.
One of the most important arguments against an independent central bank concerns accountability. I do not accept the argument that monetary policy is a neutral instrument outside politics that is too difficult and arcane to be handled by politicians.
Sir Bryan Hopkin and Sir Douglas Wass went on:
It is not the job of central bankers to judge how far it is right to go in damaging the standard of living of some members of the community or destroying the jobs of others … These are broad matters as much of social welfare as of economics. The decisions of Ministers may not escape criticism; they rarely do. But, that it is and should be their responsibility to make the decisions seems to us to follow from the nature of the decisions and the way they work.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor would argue that his proposals for a Monetary Policy Committee and for oversight by the Treasury Select Committee ensure accountability for the Bank's actions in future. I think it extremely unlikely that members of the Monetary Policy Committee will line up and vote against the Governor; his influence will be decisive. The Treasury Select

Committee can bring an element of transparency to the process, but it cannot make the Bank genuinely accountable, because it has no sanctions.
If the Treasury Select Committee is seriously to be given oversight, it will need a budget to commission outside research. I would argue that it will also need the power to hold confirmatory hearings with the Governor and with members of the Monetary Policy Committee. Oversight without sanctions is a dead letter.
It is with great reluctance that I debate this issue. The country, business, industry, the professions, the people of Hackney and the people of Dunfermline are solidly united behind the Labour Government and look forward to their continuing for at least a decade of triumphant rule.
If we forget the siren voices of fashion—nothing is more pernicious in economic management than fashionable ideas—the academic basis for independence is not as sound as people say. The examples should give us pause, and there are serious implications for democracy.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. As this is a debate of substance, I shall try to keep the maiden speech formalities to a minimum. That should be easy, as I represent Twickenham, which I hope that most hon. Members will have heard of, so I need not make an extensive Cook's tour of the constituency.
My predecessor, Mr. Jessel, served on the Back Benches for 27 years. It was never entirely clear to his constituents whether that was conscious career planning or merely the result of oversight by a succession of Conservative leaders. Whatever the reason, he applied himself assiduously to the duties of a constituency Member. He worked hard on his constituents' behalf, and many people have spoken warmly of his contribution in solving their individual problems.
Mr. Jessel fought hard on particular constituency issues. Hon. Members of long standing will remember the case of the Kneller Hall Royal Military school of music, which he fought hard to save. It was said in the 1980s that Ministers and officials in the Ministry of Defence were spending more time worrying about the problem of military music than about the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, largely at his insistence. His campaign was successful, but if officials in the MOD are relieved at his passing, I must tell them that I intend to fight equally hard for that institution and others, if they are threatened by the Government.
I disagreed with almost everything that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, but she deserves credit for having brought an important issue—probably the most important decision that the Government have yet made—to the attention of the House.
I shall briefly rehearse the central arguments why central bank independence is important and why so many Governments have followed that policy. The first is the need for an institution that is clearly and unambiguously committed to low and stable inflation. We take low inflation for granted, but we forget the corrosive effect of cumulatively high rates of inflation.
If I can revert briefly to the game with the round ball rather than the oval one, back in 1966, German football supporters visiting this country for the world cup required DM12 for every £l. Those who came back last year for the European cup required less than DM3, despite some appreciation of the pound in previous months. That is a measure of the experience of monetary incontinence under Governments of both major parties.
Inflation is a corrosive phenomenon that has continually undermined the competitiveness of British industry and has required endless and often humiliating devaluations to recoup the loss of competitiveness. I have never understood why people on the left feel that inflation is unimportant, because all the evidence suggests that the main victims of inflation are the poor. They do not have the resources or capacity to hedge against inflation, they do not have people to bargain on their behalf and they suffer more than anyone else.
That is not only a British experience: the countries of south America, such as Argentina and Brazil, that have reverted from high inflation to low inflation with the help of independent banks had previously suffered high levels of inequality produced by inflation. It is now universally accepted, in Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world, including New Zealand and the United States, and in south America and Russia, that Governments need a bulwark against inflation. Independent central banks provide that.
The reason why it is important for central banks not to suffer day-to-day political intervention is that it is difficult for such intervention to be successful, because of the long lags in economic policy. It is usually necessary to raise interest rates long before inflation appears. We know that politicians can be courageous in making difficult decisions about monetary austerity. Lord Jenkins and Lord Healey have, in the past, forced through many painful decisions to bring down inflation, but they always acted too late. They—or, rather, their predecessors—should have acted in advance of inflation appearing. That is what a technically based, independent central bank can do.
The second basic reason why independence is important relates to interest rates. We know from long experience that markets always discount inflation. Long-term interest rates in Britain are consistently higher than those in other European countries, notably in Germany, and people pay a price for that. Companies pay a higher price for long-term capital. Individuals suffer, and the national debt is inflated unnecessarily by high interest rates. An independent central bank should get those down, as we saw from the market reaction to the Chancellor's announcement a few weeks ago.
We need to achieve a climate of long-termism in British industry. I am sure that that is an issue that is close to the heart of the Minister who will reply to the debate. It is important.
I have left British industry from a company that engaged in 25-year planning. Industry often has a long-term outlook, but I was fortunate to work for a company, Shell, that was in a strong financial position, with very little debt, and that was internationally diversified so that it did not have to worry about exchange rate fluctuations. However, British companies that are

highly dependent on bank debt and the value of sterling can be destabilised by erratic monetary policy. British industry's outlook has been so short-term because of the way that monetary policy has been conducted. It is not in the nature of capitalism to be short-term: it is the way that our policy has been conducted.
Independent central banks have a general problem with accountability, which was the core of the argument by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. How do Governments ensure democratic control over one of the core elements of economic policy? That is a genuine dilemma, and different countries have struggled with it in different ways. The analogy I choose is with the military. Clearly, the military have to be under political control, but no Government in their right mind would insist that battlefield commanders should be directed in their tactics in the field. We have to separate broad political control from day-to-day management.
The model that the Government have chosen, which is based on American experience rather than German, is correct, and the Liberal Democrats fully support it. Although we agree with the Government's broad approach and the model that they have chosen, we are critical of some aspects of the Government's approach.
The Government have not consulted much, and the decision was sprung on the country, industry and the City. The decision could have been taken with more consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has shown how that could be done. Some time ago, he prepared a statement of the possibilities for a UK reserve bank. He discussed his proposals with the City and the Governor of the Bank of England, and received feedback. That is the model that the Government should have followed. They will have time to do so when the legislation is considered, but the decision was taken very peremptorily.
Another of my criticisms relates to the way in which the members of what is now called the Interim Monetary Committee are chosen. The people who have been chosen are undoubtedly of high quality, and congratulations are due on that. I can vouch for at least one, who was a predecessor of mine at Shell as chief economist. That person is technically competent and, to the best of my knowledge, politically independent. She is able to draw on the experience of the United States and British industry.
My predecessor, Charles Goodhart and Willem Buiter have high technical standards, but the way they were chosen could be improved. For example, members of the monetary committee could be interviewed by the Treasury Select Committee, as they would be in the United States, their views exposed, and their experiences examined and approved by the House. That would add to the democratic content of accountability.
Another measure that could, and probably should, be taken is to extend the members' periods of office. They are presently vulnerable to political interference. Their contracts will expire before the life of this Government, but extending their contracts to five or six years would give them the necessary security and political independence.
I have another criticism, which is apparently trivial, but has important substance—the name of the Bank of England, which sends the wrong signals. I spent the early part of my political career in Scotland, and I have some sensitivity to the fact that we are a United Kingdom.


We are a country of differing regions. Scotland has a different level of house ownership from England, and levels of unemployment differ greatly from one part of the country to another. Those regional experiences should be reflected by the people who make decisions on monetary policy. We would like a regional system of directors, as well as those with outside academic expertise.
The Liberal Democrats strongly support the Government's decision, both its principle and the model that they have chosen. However, it is important to stress that it is a necessary rather than a sufficient condition for good economic policy. If the Government were to allow the Bank of England to operate independently and to pursue an austere approach to the management of money while not disciplining their fiscal policy, we would quickly experience high interest rates, appreciating sterling and considerable damaging side effects. A necessary corollary of the Government's actions on the monetary front is a similar discipline on fiscal policy. We shall see in the Budget whether that commitment is there.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing an important debate this morning. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on an excellent and well-argued speech. He is an economist by training and, until recently, by occupation, and the House will look forward to hearing more from him in the years ahead.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, few—if any—decisions taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been greeted with quite such acclaim as the decision to hand control of interest rates to the Bank of England. Press comment was enthusiastic. Will Hutton in The Guardian said that it was part of a process of modernising the British state. I noticed that he also said:
Advocate Bank of England independence, and it's never long before
Montagu
Norman … is being used to scare us witless of the perils and dangers ahead.
As my hon. Friend demonstrated, Will Hutton was at least right about that. The Financial Times described the decision as "unequivocal good news"; The Economist said that it was "welcome and long overdue" and described it as a "political masterstroke".
It is perhaps not surprising that the economic great and good welcomed the decision. However, not only Fleet street journalists were pleased. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) mentioned industrialists in his area. I have lost count of the number of constituents in East Ham—very close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington—who have expressed their delight at the new Government's performance. When I have asked what changes they have been pleased about, most have mentioned the decision on the Bank of England.
The decision has sparked enthusiasm across the country, because the message it sends is completely of a piece with the new Government's approach—characterised by boldness, implementing solutions that work in practice, and rejecting dogma.
The Government want to work in partnership with the nation's institutions, not go to war with them. They are committed to stability in place of the pursuit of short-lived booms that marked the previous Government's period of office. That is the popular view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's decision, and one of the key reasons why the immediate euphoria that followed the election has not yet started to recede. As we understand it, we have the most popular Government since polling records began, and this decision and the way in which it was made go a long way to explaining why.
Of course some have criticised the decision—not only my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington—but nobody should underestimate the importance to the Government of the wave of enthusiasm that we are enjoying, which is due in no small part to the one decision, and how it is helping them to achieve the programme on which we were all elected.
I am an avid reader of Tribune. An article in the current issue written by one of my hon. Friends describes the decision as
delivering policy to the enemy
and
a gesture which … conciliates only our enemies".
The decision also conciliates many people who are not our enemies; many who wanted a new Labour Government who would be radical and trustworthy, and who feel that that is what they have got. The new Government will not play fast and loose with people's money, and it would be a fatal error to believe that only our enemies would be anxious if it were otherwise.
To be successful, do not the new Government have to consign to the dustbin the idea that large parts of the economy constitute our enemy? Such an idea can only be a recipe for the disastrous and debilitating strife that has so damaged Labour Governments in the past. We would fail if we went down that road again. We are on a different road now, and we shall succeed. We want partnership, not warfare. That is another reason why the nation is in such good heart.
The Commission on Public Policy and British Business, whose report "Promoting Prosperity: A Business Agenda for Britain" so enraged the then Deputy Prime Minister when it was launched in January, devotes one of its 10 chapters to macro-economic stability, which it describes as
probably the most important aspect of the economic framework for most companies".
The article in the Tribune said that "stability is dead easy". Perhaps it is, but the previous Government conspicuously failed to achieve it, and the consequences were catastrophic: two disastrous recessions, consistently higher levels of inflation than our competitors. The pound in 1979 would be worth only 37p today. As the report on promoting prosperity pointed out, inflation has been not only high but, almost as bad, much more volatile than elsewhere. All that explains why we have been so conspicuously unsuccessful in attracting the investment we need for our factories, infrastructure and public services.
The view that an omnipotent Chancellor could outplay the markets and, through fancy footwork on interest rates, produce consistently better results for the economy than the Bank of England, has surely been absolutely


discredited by history. What examples back that up? In her excellent speech—I pay tribute to her very effective work on the Treasury Committee over a long period—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington pointed to the previous Chancellor. What is his legacy?
London homes in biggest price rise for ten years
said the Evening Standard on 11 April.
Gazumping is back and estate agents are driving Porsches again
said the same newspaper last week.
We all know where that is leading, because we have been there before: boom and bust. We do not need that; we need stability instead. That is why the Commission on Public Policy and British Business proposed that the Government should
give independence to the Bank of England to achieve the target through the control of interest rates"—
quite rightly making the point that the dangers of instability are particularly acute for a Labour Chancellor.
Instability has crippled Labour Governments in the past, so that all their energy has been consumed in fighting one economic crisis after another. This Labour Government will be different. They will be able to concentrate on delivering our programme—the reason why we were elected—of putting young people back to work, and tackling the scourge of long-term unemployment head on.
On a practical level, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's decision has brought us an immediate windfall, with long-term interest rates down by half of 1 per cent. in May compared with April, when, in Germany and the USA, they fell by only one tenth of 1 per cent. That is the kind of improvement in our performance that, when pursued consistently, systematically and with determination, can transform the prospects of our economy, of securing the investment that we need and of our constituents in Hackney, East Ham and across the country.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's decision on the new role of the Bank of England has set the economy on a new track for stability. On both sides of the House, as already throughout Britain, that should be welcomed and applauded.

Mr. Ivor Caplin: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. The House may be pleased to note that I did my apprenticeship on Monday, when I sat in the Chamber for six hours without being called. I had plenty of exercise jumping up and down.
This is a proud moment for me, and I thank the people of Hove and Portslade for giving me the great opportunity to serve as the town's first ever Labour Member of Parliament. I think that I am right in saying that, since the seat of Hove was created in 1950, I am the first new Member of Parliament to be elected at a general election rather than a by-election.
I thank my predecessor, Sir Timothy Sainsbury, for his hard work on behalf of people in my constituency. There is a remarkable coincidence concerning myself and

Sir Tim—and it is not that we are both grocers. He was elected on 8 November 1973 in a by-election following the unexpected death of Martin Maddan. At that by-election, the Liberal candidate was Des Wilson, who may be known to some hon. Members. The coincidence is that 8 November 1973 was my 15th birthday, which gives away my age.
After his retirement from the House, Sir Tim made a significant private donation to Hove museum, which will allow a collection of rare films to be made available to local people. In 1896, Hove was the birthplace of modern cinema, and the collection will be significant for the museum. Before Sir Tim's election, he had a career with a well-known supermarket. During his parliamentary career, he worked in many Departments. Indeed, I believe that he went on to deputise for the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) during his illness. I place on record my thanks to Sir Tim Sainsbury.
My constituency epitomises the dramatic political change that has taken place. Such change occurred nowhere more so than in the south-east, where the economic and political complacency of the previous Government, coupled with new Labour's positive promise of new politics and a new start, had an enormous impact. I won in Hove because of the dramatic failure of the previous Government to deliver their promises on tax, crime and the economy. But the first sign of things to come was when Labour won the local elections in Hove in 1995. That election was significant, because it gave Hove and Portslade residents a new Labour council which had a two-year opportunity to prove that Labour could deliver what it promised. I was delighted to be the leader of that council until it merged with Brighton on 1 April 1997.
During those two years, we put in place plans to rehouse the residents of a decaying block of flats called Portland Gate. In partnership with others, we produced a new scheme for community housing in its place. The Minister of State, Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) helped me to start the demolition of Portland Gate recently, thus beginning a new era for social housing in that part of my constituency.
During the council's short term of office, we also cut the price of bus passes for Hove pensioners, as we pledged we would. My council was supportive of those pensioners, and they welcomed that support only to find that they then had to pay VAT on their heating and for cooking. That is a matter to which the pensioners in my constituency objected strongly, and they voted accordingly on 1 May.
Hove is a very special place, in which I live and have lived all my life. At the election, I pledged to continue to live in the constituency with my family, and that is what I intend to do.
Hove could be described as a good-looking town, with some fine buildings and open spaces. Indeed, I am sure that, were she in the Chair, Madam Speaker would agree, because she visited the town in the summer to commemorate one of our famous residents, the suffragette Victoria Liddiard. In Hove and Portslade, we also have many good businesses and local employers. It is also a commuter town, with many people, like me, travelling up and down to London each day.
Behind that facade, however, Hove suffers from high youth unemployment, and it has an elderly population who need to be supported. We also have our share of low-paid and low-skilled jobs. I am pleased that the new council is working hard in partnership with business to attract new employers to the area.
Although I am the Member for Hove, colleagues may have noticed that I have referred occasionally to my constituency as Hove and Portslade. Portslade is a unique area of my constituency, with an attractive village centre and a thriving street of shops. At the sea end lies the entrance to Shoreham port, the scene of angry protests just two years ago when the port took the ill-advised decision to export live animals.
Under the Labour Government, I look forward to working with our European partners to stamp out that cruel practice. I and my constituents are pleased to note that the strong leadership that Britain needs to show in Europe is already evident from the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.
I should like to follow the new convention apparent in other maiden speeches by mentioning the constituency football team. I have supported Brighton and Hove Albion since I was a boy. Many hon. Members may be aware of the problems that the club has faced and is still facing, largely as a result of the actions of the previous owner, Mr. Bill Archer, and his chief executive and a former Member, David Bellotti. Having said that, I offer my commiserations to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), because our final day draw meant that the Albion stayed in the football league at Hereford's expense. If I were asked to choose between the last 20 minutes of that game and the tension of election night, there would be no contest.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for initiating this morning's debate. Before 1 May, I had worked in the private sector for nearly 20 years. Indeed, for all that time I was employed by a financial services company, so I would like to think that I am able to say what businesses would like from Government to help them in their endeavours.
The most important factor for any business, large or small, is stability. I support without reservation the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know from my postbag that many businesses in my constituency are solidly behind his decision. In my view, it will stop politicians such as the former Chancellor cutting interest rates just before a party conference so that he could go on stage to brag, and then putting them back up according to political whim. That is why the Bank of England's independence to set interest rates is important.
That decision has generated confidence in the business community. We have already noted in the six weeks since polling day that if there is confidence and stability, the market grows. That has happened because new Labour has shown that we can run the economy in the long term for all the people.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) said, a new mood is sweeping the country. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues at the Treasury on helping to create that mood by their decision to give the Bank of England the freedom to set interest rates. History will show that that decision was widely supported.
I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. As one of my hon. Friends said to me yesterday, I now feel like a real Member of Parliament.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on her courage to stand up against the latest fashion or fetish to hand power over monetary policy to the Bank of England. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) on their excellent maiden speeches. Their predecessors will be remembered with affection by colleagues on both sides of the House. Those of us who have been in the House for some time knew them both, and will remember them with such affection.
I admire the confidence with which those maiden speakers contributed to a debate on a rather arcane and complicated subject. In particular, I admire the certainty, I will not say absolutism, of the hon. Member for Twickenham. He offered us a clear exposition of how central bank independence would solve so many of our problems. At the end of his speech, however, a note of doubt crept in. Perhaps when he was a high-powered executive with Shell he was not allowed to show such a feeling, but now we are in the business of politics. That doubt stemmed from his belief that the Government's decision was a necessary but not a sufficient condition of economic policy.

Mr. Radice: Quite right.

Mr. Davies: I note my hon. Friend's comment.
The hon. Member for Twickenham then asked about fiscal policy, responsibility for which is still left with politicians, whom we cannot trust. What really concerned me was the implication in his speech that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will play fast and loose with the country's money.
That is not a good message to send out. It appears to say," I, the Chancellor, am not a man you can trust. You have just elected me, but you cannot trust me with your money. I may be the Chancellor, but I will do terrible things to your interest rates. I will play fast and loose with your money. You will still allow me to increase taxes, or not, as the case might be. You have still put me in charge of public expenditure, but presumably I'm not to be trusted with that, either."
That is a quite extraordinary message for us politicians to send out. The idea is that, when it comes to the Bank of England and other quangoes, we politicians can no longer be trusted. Because of that, we must transfer power to the Bank of England. Then we wonder why the public do not trust us very much and feel alienated from us. But if we tell them that they cannot trust us with their money, of all things, we cannot expect them to take us seriously.
I was saddened by the hon. Gentleman's implication about the Chancellor, whom I have known for a long time. I have a high regard for him and I would trust him with my money, but, apparently, colleagues on both sides of the House are not prepared to do so.
As I have said, the hon. Member for Twickenham referred to my right hon. Friend's decision as a necessary but not sufficient condition of economic policy. The Government still have power over fiscal budgetary policy. The hon. Gentleman said that we had to be careful to do something about that to stop those terrible bankers putting interest rates too high.

Dr. Cable: No.

Mr. Davies: It is no good for the hon. Gentleman denying it, because that is exactly what he said. If interest rates are set too high, the value of the pound might go up. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is right, but I understood from reading Mr. Gavyn Davies and other people who write in the newspapers that the sole criterion for fixing interest rates would be domestic. I understood that the sole criterion would be hitting the inflation target—it is an odd sort of target of "2.5 per cent. or less", and I am not sure how one hits a target that is not precise, but there we are. Perhaps we shall be told about such things when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a speech at the Mansion House or somewhere.
We were told that we could not have bankers putting up interest rates too much, as that would affect the pound. That is totally irrelevant, as we have now given them independence. We are now saying, "Let us use budgetary policy and put up taxes, so that we can stop the bankers putting up interest rates." But this morning, hon. Members have said what a marvellous thing it is to split monetary policy from fiscal policy.
I am not an economist, and I cannot understand those long equations that always end in zero, but I can see that the United States of America has a splendid Federal Bank, and a high budget deficit. It has been struggling to reduce it ever since President Reagan was in office. Germany has a very high budget deficit.

Mr. Radice: Because of east Germany.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend says that that is because of east Germany, and it probably is. But I have it on respected academic authority that there is considerable instability in the bond markets in the world. One reason, it is said—neither I nor anyone else can prove it—is that, over the past 10 or 15 years, we have begun to separate budgetary policy from fiscal policy. As a result, Governments will reflate the economy; because they cannot now touch interest rates, they will achieve the aim in a different way. The argument is not one-sided.
I do not believe that we should be slaves to every jot and comma in our manifesto—apparently that is the latest fashion these days, but I do not believe it. Obviously, economic crises arise and action has to be taken, but in this case there could have been consultation.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment.
The manifesto made it quite clear that we were to reform the Bank of England to create a monetary committee. I agree with that—the advice from the Governor always tended to be too narrowly based. We said the same thing in the business manifesto, which is important. It states:
We propose a new monetary policy committee"—
that is quite right—
to decide on the advice which the Bank of England should give to the chancellor.
It did not mention the other policy, and no form of casuistry or sophistry from the Treasury Bench can explain that away.
I have a little question to ask my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. I am just a pedantic lawyer, but I should like to know on what authority the monetary committee of the Bank of England made its decision on interest rates last week. It decided to put them up, but that is irrelevant. The Queen's Speech states:
a Bill will be introduced to give the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates".
The Bill has not arrived yet, and I have tabled a question asking when it will. I have received no answer.
I then tabled a question asking on what authority the grand people—the brilliant economists—decided to put up people's interest rates by a quarter of 1 per cent. I thought that I might get an answer from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, but I did not. She merely answered:
Operational responsibility for setting official interest rates has been transferred to the Bank of England."—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 395.]
I know that. I was asking what the authority was.
We were told in the Queen's Speech that there would be a Bill—presumably it was thought at the time that a Bill was necessary—to transfer operational responsibility. I was a bit surprised, as I thought that, under the Bank of England Act 1946—the terrible nationalisation Act under which directives could be issued—a letter to the Governor telling him what he could do would have been sufficient. Perhaps I was wrong.
I know that this is a small, pedantic, legal point, but I hope that my hon. Friend can tell us on what authority those people in the Bank of England are deciding the interest rates that I would have to pay if I had an overdraft and that companies in my constituency are having to pay. Why has the Bill not been introduced? Is there a formal document? Has a letter been sent out, or what? I should like an answer.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Many people may be surprised to see me here today giving my maiden speech—none more so than David Congdon, my predecessor, who served for 16 years on Croydon council and was its deputy leader. I have served for 11 years on Croydon council and entered Parliament as its leader. Therefore, David Congdon and I are old sparring partners. I remember with fond affection looking across the chamber at him while making my contribution, and him shouting, "Rubbish" at me. Beyond the heat of political exchange, David Congdon is a mild-mannered person of considerable ability, devoted to the good of the town. I have no hesitation in stating my appreciation of him for his long record of service to the town.
Croydon—and Croydon, Central, which I represent—is more than just a town. It is an emerging European city that commands one fifth of the capital's economy, and the largest London borough. As leader of the council, I participated in the formation of a partnership that put Croydon at the centre of business investment in the south-east. The council has inspired the new tram link that will be London's flagship for environmentally friendly transport systems. It has brought about a renaissance in culture in the south of London—in terms of the new Warehouse theatre, the Fairfield halls redevelopment, and a planned new venue in east Croydon that we see as an international business and music centre for the south of London.
However, what makes Croydon Croydon is the rich diversity of people in it. I am a case in point: some hon. Members may be saying, "Who is this bloke? He is a Welshman in exile." But I am the second Geraint to represent Croydon. The first, Geraint Williams, represented Croydon for 17 years. Recent representatives of Croydon, from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to Lord Bernard Weatherill, have all understood the importance of supporting the rich tapestry of cultures in Croydon.
The constituency has about 80,000 electors, and extends from the north, from south Norwood, down through the Manhattan skyline of Croydon, to New Addington—I have been proud to represent that unique community for 11 years. The people of Croydon and New Addington are looking towards the new Government, not just to provide safer streets, smaller class sizes and a greater London authority, but to deliver prosperity and jobs for the future.
The ingredients for that success include the empowerment of the individual through training and education, partnership with industry and taking a leading approach in the future of our Europe. We must not lose sovereignty in the name of defending it; instead, we must robustly champion Britain's interests in a new Europe. That means putting jobs—whether in terms of youth employment, the long-term unemployed, small businesses or cutting bureaucracy—at the top of the agenda. It is about getting Europe back to work.
Central to that aim is the creation of conditions for long-term investment in Britain. That means that we need an environment in which short-term interest rates are not set according to political considerations, but in the best interests of our economy.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's decision to delegate operational responsibility for setting interest rates was a master stroke, which delivered overnight a reduction in the long-term borrowing costs of British industry. It was a master stroke which brought about a system of accountability enabling my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to intervene in a crisis. He will not intervene before polling day in order to keep interest rates artificially low—which we have seen—but will use the policy to enable us to pursue our long-term interests.
Some hon. Members may say, "What about Eddie George—he has just put up interest rates by another quarter per cent?"; but we have just seen £28 billion of consumer spending pushed into the economy through the flotation of building societies—that amount was forecast as £21 billion in February. At a time when the housing market is also taking off, that marginal increase was inevitable, irrespective of who was in charge.
As for exchange rates, the key to maintaining stable exchange rates for the future is low inflation, and the key to that is proper independent management of interest rates. The long-term borrowing rates are down, even though the short-term rates have gone up, which shows that what has been done is correct.
Others have said that, having got into power, we have given away power to the Bank of England. In reality, there is a system of accountability; in addition, responsibility for the supervision of high street banks has been taken away from the Bank of England and given to the Securities and Investments Board. Taken together, therefore, the reforms narrow the responsibility of the Bank of England to manage monetary policy.
Some have asked, what about consultation? In reality, long periods of consultation and uncertainty would have whipped up the money markets, which would have sent up interest rates and resulted in lower investment and higher mortgage rates. It would have been an irresponsible thing to do. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made the right decision, with great courage. His decision allows us to set interest rates within the wider objectives of inflation and economic growth, and, in so doing, avoid creating damaging short-term swings in interest rates and investment.
The reform is an example of best practice taken from across the globe. We have replaced a system which places a risk premium on British jobs with one that is in the British interest—the economic gain is clear. Some say that the Chancellor's range of choices has been reduced, but the choices would have been made in any case—it was only a matter of timing. More fundamentally, the operational response of the Bank in setting interest rates is, of course, framed by the inflation bandings laid down by the Chancellor. Those, in turn, are set by our manifesto objectives of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
The reform is not about losing control; it is about creating the conditions to succeed in jobs, prosperity and growth. It is great news for Britain and for Croydon. I am proud to make my maiden speech today, and doubly proud because, in Labour's first month of government, my wife has given birth to our second daughter. It is time for a change, and I do not mean only of nappies. It is time for a new Britain, in a new Europe, in a new millennium.

Mr. Michael Jack: This has been an extremely interesting debate, and one of the few opportunities we have had since the new Government took office to probe and question an important and fundamental change in the way in which economic policy is to be set in the United Kingdom. To that end, I welcome the new Economic Secretary to the Dispatch Box, and I wish her well at the Treasury.
I congratulate the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), for Hove (Mr. Caplin) and for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) on their maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central showed that he will be a real asset to the Labour Whips, because he performed well in a short time, and sat down when required. He will be doing a lot of that in future. I was also grateful to all three new Members for their kind words about my former colleagues, Toby Jesse', Tim Sainsbury and David Congdon, who will appreciate the remarks of their successors.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on having maintained her reputation for robustness and independence of thinking by challenging, in a wholly un-Mandelsonlike way, the accepted treatise followed by the Labour party. She must have read the article by Anatole Kaletsky in The Times, published shortly after the announcement was made. The headline was "A steel cage for the Iron Chancellor" and it said:
Brown is throwing away the key to policy".
I remember the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) saying that Labour had waited 18 years to get control, but was now giving it all away. We have often seen in the new Government's policies the Pontius Pilate approach to politics—"Not me, guy. I'll give the decision to somebody else." The hon. Lady carefully probed the question of accountability.
I am lucky enough to be a former Treasury Minister and one who has sat where decisions on monetary policy are made, so I am one of the few people who can comment with a degree of authority on the former system, which led my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to deliver this country's best inflation record for 50 years. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington was kind to record my right hon. and learned Friend's achievements in that respect, and in those remarks she got to the heart of the matter.
The heart of the matter when setting interest rates—whether they are set by the Bank of England or any other body—is the degree of judgment that can be exercised in determining the decisions. The hon. Lady put her finger on it, saying that, when my right hon. and learned Friend had to make a decision of his own volition, he had to—in the nicest sense—out-guess the experts; and he got it right. No one group of people has a monopoly on wisdom and knowledge. Setting interest rate objectives requires feel, touch and sensitivity.
I asked the Economic Secretary to use her Treasury model and expertise to work out, given current levels of economic activity, what levels of interest rates would be required to achieve a series of parameters. Her response was remarkable, given the degree of expertise that still—believe it or not—abounds in the Treasury. She wrote:
it is not possible to be sure about the precise level of interest rates required to hit an exact inflation rate ten months ahead."—[Official Report, 3 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 147.]
I agree that it is difficult, as is any element of economic forecasting; but the old scheme, whereby we had a mixture of politics, with its degree of flexibility, married with the comment and detail from the experts from the Bank of England and the world of commerce—no Treasury Minister, Bank of England or monetary committee is ever short of advice on what to do about interest rates; it comes in by the bucket load—meant that the feel and touch of a real human being, a politician who could sense factors that experts do not, made an important difference.
One of the sacrifices made by taking the present route is that interest rates will be set at a higher level than would otherwise be the case, because the Bank of England has to hit an inflationary target. In parliamentary questions, I probed the matter of the period over which the Bank was

supposed to hit the target, what sanctions would be imposed if it did not do so, and how the Bank would be made accountable; however, I got no answers other than, "Watch this space for the Mansion House speech."
I hope that the Economic Secretary will convey to the Chancellor the message that we will watch that speech very carefully, because we want to see some numbers. So far, all we have had is great headlines and lots of chat, but no facts and figures.
I asked the Economic Secretary about the time scale over which the Bank of England would be required to achieve the new inflation target, and was told:
The Chancellor will set out the Government's approach to monetary policy in his Mansion House speech".—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 181.]
When I asked about the definitions of various elements of price stability, growth and so on, I was told that the Government would not set growth or employment targets. How are we to judge the setting of the inflation target? On what basis will that be done?
I challenge the Minister to put into the public domain her Department's monthly monetary forecast—or perhaps even that has been done away with. That was a jolly good Treasury document, which gave a really good assessment and enabled us to understand how the inflation target was to be set. The Government believe in openness, but there must be openness on both sides; it is no use having only the minutes from the newly independent Bank of England to look at—we want to know the Treasury's view, because it is also part of the monitoring process.
When I asked about how the Chancellor would resolve any difference of opinion between the Governor and Chancellor on the Government's objectives for growth and employment—both unspecified—and the achievement of price stability, I was again told, "Watch this space for the Mansion House speech." It will have to be a hell of a speech if it is to answer all those questions.
How are such differences to be resolved? In his article, Kaletsky asks:
what will happen when the Bank and the Government start to disagree about where the economy should be going?
It is all very well having that wonderful independence in the good times, but what will happen in the bad times? We have seen Germany, with its independent bank, trying to deal with the German economy and the strictures of inflation getting in the way of the sound of the unemployed crying for the economy to be expanded. We have yet to test the difficult decisions resulting from having an independent Bank of England.
When I asked how we will identify the numerical targets of the Government's economic policies, so that we can monitor what is happening, the reply again referred me to the Mansion House speech. When I asked how differences were to be resolved, I was given a restatement of what was in the Chancellor's statement to the House of Commons on 20 May.
We are owed much more information about how, for example, the inflation target is to be set. If the Chancellor of the day wants to manipulate the Bank of England—for all its independence—he can choose a lax inflation target and so give us low interest rates.
We have heard nothing from the Chancellor about what he thinks will be the potential for inflation in the British economy. Does he think it could be 2.3 per cent? Could it


be 2.2 per cent? That will have a profound effect on what the Bank of England will do when setting future interest rates. We need to know the basis for those decisions, so that we can judge how well the Bank, in its new way of working, is doing.
On another occasion, I was told that the Government would retain the right to override the Bank's operational independence in extreme circumstances, for a limited period only. What on earth does that mean? I was told that further details would be made available when the draft Bill was introduced in the House. We have searched, but no answers are forthcoming.
There are a great number of unanswered questions about how the whole operation will be run. The Opposition will carefully probe those issues. I hope that the Chancellor's Mansion House speech will supply the details that will enable us to understand precisely what is going on in this new world.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was successful in securing this debate on such a significant issue. It is a key element of the Government's tone that we were not prepared to wait to get the grounding for stability into the economy; we wanted to do it as quickly as possible.
The Government recognise my hon. Friend's sterling work on the Treasury Select Committee. She has pursued a distinctive line on central bank independence and we acknowledge her commitment to that. When I was doing some background reading of the Select Committee's reports in preparation for the debate, I noticed that my hon. Friend has very little regard for economists. For example, on one occasion she said:
Economics is a happy hunting ground for charlatans.
As an economist who went into politics, I must be on a downward slide. Perhaps I should assure Arthur Daley that I have no intention of becoming a used car salesman. Perhaps my position is mitigated by the fact that my hon. Friend then said:
This is partly because it is dominated by men.
At least I am off the hook on that count.
We have had an interesting debate, with interesting and commendable maiden speeches from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Mr. Caplin) and for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). They were outstanding introductions to the House. As someone who only recently made her own maiden speech, I know what it feels like to stand up and speak in the Chamber for the first time. I had a great sense of déjà vu when the hon. Member for Twickenham spoke, because my formative days in economics were spent in debate with him in Glasgow. Indeed, in those days he had a very different political viewpoint.
Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I was delighted by the victories in Hove and in Croydon, Central. I am sure that we all wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central on the happy event for his family—new Labour, new baby. I am sure that his child will enjoy growing up under a Labour Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to universal acclaim for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement. I note the

point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), that it was not just universal acclaim from the City and the financial institutions, but universal acclaim from the people. As recently as Saturday, at Shotts highland games—hardly the usual scenario for talking about monetary policy—I was assailed by people wanting to congratulate the Government on their decision on the Bank of England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made a number of points about the statistical background to the concept that a central independent bank and low levels of inflation are related. She mentioned the issue of causation. It is always difficult conclusively to prove cause and effect. However, there are a number of recent examples, such as New Zealand, where countries with a history of high inflation have moved to a central independent bank and benefited from a consequent fall in inflation. We must bear such important elements in mind.
A number of hon. Members said that setting and maintaining low levels of inflation is important for the economy, as well as for individual households. As a Labour Member, I am conscious that, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said, it is the poorest in society who suffer from high inflation. A considerable amount of academic work has been done since the Treasury Select Committee report on an independent central bank. There is considerable evidence of a relationship between an independent central bank and low inflation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred to removing political judgment from the setting of monetary policy. That is precisely what it is all about. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham said that, under the previous Government, there were repeated beauty parades, with the then Chancellor setting an interest rate immediately before the Conservative party conference, getting a standing ovation, and then making another change. That is not sound economics. It will not lead to the stability that is important for long-term growth.
The setting of interest rates is not the only monetary policy lever. To suggest that there is reduced accountability and a removal of the political imperatives to secure growth and to take into account social inclusion, is to fail to understand that the Monetary Policy Committee must operate within the parameters set by the Government's strategy for growth and stability within the economy. That is vital.
The right hon. Member for Fylde deserves sympathy, as not one member of his party has been here to support him—probably because they have other things on their minds. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman's speech in praise of the former Chancellor is now being distributed. He may be nervous about what position he will be given by whoever emerges as the Conservative party leader.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making a statement tomorrow night at the Mansion House, and the text will be available before that in the House. The targets for monetary policy will be laid out in my right hon. Friend's speech.
Accountability is important—we recognise the debate to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and the hon. Member for Twickenham referred. My hon. Friend made some


interesting proposals about the role of the Treasury Select Committee, especially in the appointment of members of the Monetary Policy Committee. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor addressed the House, he made it clear that membership of that committee would be based on the need for recognisable expertise. The appointments that he has made so far have been universally recognised as taking that need into account.
It is, of course, possible for the Select Committee to summon before it not only members of the Monetary Policy Committee, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to account for those appointments. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington has made suggestions about how the Select Committee might operate in future, and we will carefully consider them. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is currently examining our procedures, so my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington might like to make representations to the new Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham referred to Montagu Norman. Indeed, other members also referred to him. To try to compare the current position with that which existed pre-1945 is to ignore completely the fact that much of the economic debate in those days related to the gold standard. The world has moved on, and the climate within which we operate has moved on. We must take into account modern developments in economics, and the experience of best practice in other parts of the world.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked on whose authority the Monetary Policy Committee met last week to set interest rates. It met on the authority of the Chancellor, who made it clear when he announced the changes to the Bank of England that he would expect it, as a signal of the Government's commitment to long-term stability in the economy, to begin its work immediately.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Liddell: I am sorry. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that I am under time constraints.
In terms of the timing of legislation that will come before the House, the Bank of England Bill is currently in preparation. With a fair wind, we could anticipate it at the end of the summer. I am sure that hon. Members recognise the Government's commitment to governing this country and getting legislation under way as quickly as possible. There are tight time constraints on us in terms of the legislative programme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We now come to the next subject, Earth summit 2.

Earth Summit 2

11 am

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am delighted to have this chance to introduce a debate on Earth summit 2, in particular on the theme of sustainable development. I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench and look forward to hearing what she has to say. I also welcome the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the former Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), the former Under-Secretary.
It has long been my view that sustainable development is not just of supreme importance but is the supreme issue that political leaders must address. It is crucial for this country and for every country; it is crucial for this generation and for future generations. Those of us who live at a time of unparalleled prosperity and peace in a country where so many freedoms are taken for granted, as they are in Britain, have a responsibility to concern themselves with the environment more than ever. This generation are trustees. We are charged with a duty to protect and improve our inheritance. We have a duty not to damage our inheritance in pursuit of short-term goals, not to consume resources in a way that destroys that inheritance, and not to leave our children and grandchildren with a worse legacy than we inherited.
Important though the contest for the Conservative leadership is, and fascinating though the process of analysing last night's votes may be, both subjects pale into insignificance compared with the urgency and overriding importance of achieving the goal of sustainability. I warmly welcome the fact that the special session of the United Nations will be held in less than two weeks. A wide variety of issues will be debated. This morning, I wish to explore the issue of climate change, which, without being apocalyptic, I believe needs more attention than it currently receives. It is often referred to as "global warming". Given this country's normal climate, that sounds rather appealing—as though my constituents in South Suffolk will soon enjoy Mediterranean weather.
Climate change also has some unattractive elements, however. There are likely to be droughts in some parts of Britain and more frequent flooding in others. There will be more rain and snow, higher winds and more frequent gales. Crop yields in the south-east may decrease. There may be decreases in river flow in summer and increases in winter, and more storms and flooding in coastal areas. Not all those consequences are benign.
Around the world, the dangers are even more damaging. Rises in sea level threaten some parts of the world that have substantial concentrations of population. As the Association of Small Island States pointed out, the economies of some islands—for instance, Caribbean islands such as Barbados—will be severely damaged by surges in sea levels. Climate change is therefore a potentially dangerous development.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although it may be important to have a precautionary principle on climate change, climate change has been going on all the time? We should not be too frightened of it; otherwise we might have been frozen in the ice age.

Mr. Yeo: The real question is the extent to which human activity now contributes to climate change. Human activity


in the past 100 years has arguably led to a far more rapid rate of climate change than anything that occurred in the Earth's history. It is hard to be certain about the speed of climate change. Scientists have rightly been reluctant to be dogmatic about the precise causes. I welcome the best scientists' tendency to understate their conclusions, but, to a layman such as myself, it seems at least possible that climate change may be occurring faster than some people estimate. The inadequacy of the data available, which prevents bodies such as the intergovernmental panel on climate change from exaggerating the dangers, may be concealing the pace at which climate change is occurring.
Against that background, the world cannot stand idly by when the concentration of greenhouse gases, for instance, has reached twice the level of the pre-industrial age—twice the level that prevailed throughout the world's history. We cannot stand idly by and not deal with issues such as the need to cut the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. I pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal for the work that he did when he was Secretary of State and to the progress that was made in cutting carbon dioxide emissions and moving commendably towards the original target set under the last Government.
I also warmly welcome the new Government's commitment to achieving a cut of 20 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2010. As the Prime Minister has taken such pains to stress that the Government will keep their promises, he would not have allowed that commitment to be made without knowing pretty clearly with what policies it will be achieved. That question is particularly interesting because the only firm policy commitment relevant to that objective to have been announced so far will have the opposite effect. The decision to reduce the rate of VAT on fuel from 8 to 5 per cent. will increase carbon dioxide emissions. Achieving a 20 per cent. cut in just over a decade will require immediate action. I hope that the Minister will set out the policies that will be followed.
I note the recommendation of the Government's panel on sustainable development that
the Government should in future prepare and publish an overall assessment of the environmental consequences of measures in its annual Budget.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government will do that on 2 July. In case she hesitates, I refer her to Hansard of 4 December 1996, when the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), the then spokesman for the Labour party on the environment, contributed to a debate that I introduced on sustainable development. She said:
each year we will publish a 'green book' alongside the Chancellor's Red Book, setting out the environmental implications of Government policy."—[Official Report, 4 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 991.]
I hope that the Minister will confirm that that will be done.
Will the policies followed to achieve the 20 per cent. target include a greater use of market instruments? I hope that the Minister will say whether the Deputy Prime Minister knows what market instruments are. In answer to an oral question of mine about whether sustainability in transport policy would be promoted through greater use of market instruments, the Deputy Prime Minister told me on the Floor of the House that people who
have been subjected to the privatisation of the bus services … will not agree with that policy."—[Official Report, 3 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 181.]

That appeared to be a rejection of the greater use of market instruments, but it may merely have been that the Deputy Prime Minister was not clear what they were.
I hope that the Minister will also tell us a little more about the Government's proposals for transport. For example, will we see a differential rate of vehicle excise duty to encourage the use of more fuel-efficient cars? Will road pricing be used to encourage an environmentally responsible use of cars? If Britain is to continue to exercise a leading influence in international debates, it will not be enough for us just to set a challenging target; we need credible policies to support that target, and those will need to be announced quickly if our word in international debates is to be listened to.
When the Deputy Prime Minister spoke last week at the Royal Geographical Society, he said that the Government would place a high priority on energy efficiency, among a number of other priorities. Are the Government prepared to lead by example? What targets are being set to improve energy efficiency in the buildings on the Government's own estate? If VAT on fuel is to be cut to 5 per cent., will the same rate of VAT be introduced for energy-saving materials? Will there be a cut from the present 17.5 per cent. rate for those materials, or do the Government intend to perpetuate the incentive to consume but not to conserve?
Will the Government support a proposal that I made in the last Parliament, whereby mortgage lenders should require house surveys to include an energy rating before a mortgage is offered? That is a simple and low-cost way to promote more awareness among house buyers and sellers of what can be done to make homes more energy efficient.
The introduction of such measures in the United Kingdom is the only foundation for any claim by the Government to have a right to speak out on energy efficiency issues in international debates.
With regard to an international approach, will the Minister say what the Government's attitude towards tradeable quotas will be? Are they regarded as a method of achieving a fair sharing of the burden of cutting carbon dioxide emissions among countries in general?
The special session of the United Nations will also provide an opportunity to continue the debate on the aviation fuel tax. Given, first, that the cost of aviation fuel in most countries is substantially below the cost of petrol used by cars; secondly, that carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile travelled are mostly higher for air travel than for car travel, and that for short-haul air travel they are higher than for high-speed trains; and, thirdly, that air traffic is growing so fast that carbon dioxide emissions from this source rose by almost one third in the five years up to 1995, it seems extraordinary that aviation fuel is not already taxed.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman says that it is extraordinary that aviation fuel is not taxed, but it would be extremely difficult to ensure that it was taxed by all countries. If only one country imposed it, airlines would probably refuel elsewhere.

Mr. Yeo: I take that point. I was about to say that I recognise the difficulties. Clearly, to be effective, a tax would have to be agreed internationally. I recognise the role that my right hon. Friend played in the previous


Government in trying to promote the debate in the European Union and elsewhere. I welcome those efforts, but little practical achievement has yet been recorded. It is a matter of great urgency, for the reasons that I stated: the growth in air traffic and the relative inefficiency of air travel in terms of carbon dioxide emission. The matter requires greater attention.
No one could seriously argue that requiring the air travel industry to bear a share of the environmental costs that it imposes on the world would not be a desirable objective. It is also clear that the imposition of a tax on aviation fuel would be a powerful incentive for airlines to improve the energy efficiency of their aircraft. If air fares were raised as a result of such a tax, that might provide an incentive for people to consider alternatives such as high-speed trains, particularly for short-haul journeys.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government accept the merits of the case for taxing aviation fuel, that they will strive for international agreement on that and that they will seize the opportunity to promote that debate at the special session in two weeks.
I acknowledge that I have touched on only a fraction of the issues that will be considered at the Earth summit, but, because of the level of interest in this debate, I did not wish to take up an unreasonable amount of time. I want to ensure that these issues are before the House, and I shall certainly want to return to them during this parliamentary Session. I should like to have touched on many other matters—forestry, water issues, biodiversity and on the crucial debate about how we can enable poorer countries to achieve their legitimate aspirations for greater prosperity without undermining the progress of the world as a whole towards sustainability.
I hope that some of those matters will be dealt with by other hon. Members. I want to leave time for that, but I hope that the Minister will respond to the specific points that I have made. If she cannot do so in her speech today—I realise that she will not have had notice of all of them and that there may not be time for her to deal with all of them—I hope that she will respond by letter, preferably before the start of the special session in two weeks.
There is growing interest in the subject. I am sure that the Government will want to be judged by their deeds rather than by their words. Actions and decisions, not more policy reviews, are needed to build on the work of the previous Government. Sustainable development is an issue which should transcend party political boundaries. Conservative Members are ready to support the Government when they are moving in the right direction, but we shall be relentless in exposing their failures.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall endeavour to follow the unselfish example of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and speak succinctly. Wednesday morning speeches, when colleagues want to speak, should be short.
My one question to my hon. Friend the Minister is about mahogany and her Department's policy towards it. On 3 June in The Independent, Nicholas Schoon made a comparison between 1972 and 1997. He wrote that in 1972 up to a third of the world's girdle of tropical rain

forests had been destroyed, and about 0.5 per cent. of the remainder were being lost each year—some 100,000 sq km, or an area the size of Iceland.
Schoon stated that the deforestation rate for the tropics from 1990 to 1995 was estimated to be 130,000 sq km a year, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. It is thought that one or two plant and animal species become extinct every hour, as a result. The Brazilian national space academy estimated last year that the rate of deforestation in the Amazon had risen from 11,000 sq km to 15,000 sq km since the 1992 Earth summit.
I had the good fortune to go to the rally of the Amer-Indians at Altamira in Brazil in 1989 and subsequently to have had as my guests in the House the chiefs of the Kayopo tribe, Pyakan and Ru'uni. The all-party Latin-American group, of which I am a vice-chairman, has had relations with President Cardoso and the other South American leaders who attended the successful conference four months ago.
Against that background, may I ask the Minister and the Department about the Government's policy towards the importation of mahogany. It is no good imposing a blanket ban on imports. That would simply create resentment among countries that need to export. It is important to try to ascertain how the mahogany is harvested—whether that is done sensitively, without ruining the entire ecosystem, or by greedy developers who could not care less about the rain forest and simply sail in with their heavy machinery.
Members of Parliament who have had the good fortune to see those operations for themselves would testify that the importing countries can endeavour to do something constructive about the imports and their precise background. I should like to ask the Minister about mahogany cutting and the related question of the ecosystem.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am delighted that the debate has been secured and by the number of hon. Members who want to participate, which shows the increasing interest in the topic of sustainable development. Clearly, there is an increasing understanding of sustainable development.
I shall concentrate on a number of specific issues—one might call them cross-sectoral issues—in relation to Earth summit 2. First, the European Union position paper refers to the importance of moving to the implementation phase of sustainable development. That implies that nothing much has happened since Rio, except in the development of the process. That is useful enough, and it is important that the show should be kept on the road. There have been real achievements in the process, but it is time to start talking about serious implementation.
The danger at the New York summit is that, far from moving towards implementation, the Rio process could fall apart. That danger springs from the fact that the basic agreement reached at Rio has not been honoured. That agreement was based on the principle that the north and the south have common but differentiated responsibilities regarding sustainable development. Therefore, the north undertook to transfer resources to the south, in terms of both funding and technology, to allow sustainable


development to occur in that area. The aim was development and improving the quality of life without devastating the environment in the process.
In reality, the north has cut its development aid to the south. The gap between what is needed and what is provided is grotesque. That issue cannot be bucked in New York. I am pleased by the new Government's approach to sustainable development generally. However, I was disappointed when the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions last week that public expenditure limits would constrain the United Kingdom's ability to increase aid in the foreseeable future. That leads us to ask: what will the United Kingdom say in New York about that crucial issue which will decide the success of the summit?
It is important to support the idea of new financial mechanisms—one of which, the air fuel tax, was mentioned this morning. That seems a feasible option which would generate significant resources. If we cannot get our acts together on bilateral aid, there must be independent mechanisms to provide resources for sustainable development as of right. I believe that the United Kingdom Government should support the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on finance, which would report within a defined time scale and make a commitment to implement the panel's recommendations.
I also support the idea that the European Union should start the process by imposing its own air fuel tax. The system could be devised and the tax introduced immediately. That is one way of keeping the countries of the south on board and allowing the process to continue.
A second consideration is trade. It seems clear that the World Trade Organisation is not taking sustainability seriously. Its conventional wisdom is that free trade is inevitably good for sustainability, first, through the operation of the law of comparative advantage, which means that goods are produced in those areas best suited to that purpose—ignoring all sorts of other considerations that complicate the matter further—and, secondly, through the generation of increased wealth that can be used for environmental protection. That is old-fashioned, out-of-date conventional economic thinking, and it must be challenged seriously in New York.
In addition, the World Trade Organisation's rules often work against environmental protection and, on some occasions, have prevented countries from implementing important environmental protection measures. Therefore, I support the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on trade and environment. Non-governmental organisations must have greater access to, and input in, the WTO decision-making process. Although it is dangerous to call for the establishment of whole mechanisms, the current mechanisms are not working in these two areas and we must devise new ones.
Thirdly, the north must move towards sustainable consumption as a quid pro quo for calling on the south to forgo unsustainable development and consumption. Energy is just one aspect of that issue. Kyoto has been mentioned; it must be a success, and Earth summit 2 should pave the way for that.
I support the imposition of legally binding commitments on industrial countries to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in the level of 1990 emissions by 2005. The United Kingdom Government are talking about achieving that target by 2010. That is a challenging target,

and 2005 is even more so. However, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to devise solutions at a time of crisis. Sustainable development is a challenge, and saving the planet is the most important challenge of all.
Tradeable quotas have been mentioned. There is nothing wrong with that idea in itself, but it raises the question of how quotas would be allocated in the first place. There is a great deal to be said for the contraction and convergence scenario suggested by the Aubrey Meyer Global Commons Institute. It aims to establish global equity and would provide a mechanism for transferring resources to developing countries. That allocation would occur on a per capita basis, and the extent of the contraction would be based not on what is supposedly realistic, but on what is necessary to prevent damaging climate change. Climate change is a deadly serious business. We should not suggest for one moment that it might not be that bad, that it has happened before and that it might have some advantages. When human activity destabilises the planet's climate, it is time to sit up and take notice.
The United Kingdom has set a target of reducing 1990 emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. That target, however, will not be met unless we tackle the problem of road transport. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in addressing the United Nations Environment and Development Organisation, UK, conference at the Royal Geographical Society, make a commitment to the environment and to public transport within an integrated transport policy.
Turning to practicalities, I trust, therefore, that the Government will support the Road Traffic Reduction (UK Targets) Bill which I shall introduce in the new year. The debate on it will be at the heart of the discussions on transport and sustainable development in the run-up to the White Paper that the Government intend to publish in spring 1998. If the Government accept the legislation and begin the process of reducing the volume of road transport, they will set a very important example to the rest of the world and establish the United Kingdom in a lead position.

Mr. Dennis Murphy: At the outset of my maiden speech, I thank the people of Wansbeck for allowing me to represent them in this House. It is indeed an honour and a privilege.
I was born in the constituency of Wansbeck and have lived in it all my life. I believe that I understand the problems of the area and I have never wished to represent any other constituency. My predecessor, Jack Thompson, represented Wansbeck for 14 years. He was a hard-working, diligent Member of Parliament who never forgot either his background or his roots. It is to his eternal credit that, whenever I speak of him in the House or outside, people refer to him as a genuinely nice man. Not many people can manage that delicate double of being well liked and an effective politician.
Another of my predecessors was Thomas Burt, Member of Parliament for Morpeth, who was elected to the House in 1874. He was a great man who served his people and this place with great distinction for 44 years. He was also the first miners' Member of Parliament. I mention that because the near closure of the mining industry means that I will probably be the last miners' Member of Parliament to represent my constituency.
Wansbeck is situated north east of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, squeezed between Berwick-upon-Tweed and Blyth Valley—so it is a veritable rose. The main town of Ashington owes its existence to coal mining. It was the original company town, where the coal owners built and owned everything—including, for a time, the miners themselves. Apart from coal, Ashington is a famous footballing town. It is the home of Jackie Milburn, the famous—and, some would say, the very first—Newcastle United striker in the 1950s, and of Bobby and Jackie Charlton, who both had brilliant individual careers, culminating in their playing in the 1966 World cup final.
The constituency boasts two beautiful ancient market towns: Morpeth to the west, which is home to the Northumbrian pipes, and Bedlington to the south which, among other things, is famous for its breed of dog, the Bedlington terrier. It is completed to the east by the seaside village of Newbiggin, which operates one of the last fishing coble fleets in Britain.
In my view, the constituency is a microcosm of the industrial north. It is a classic example of the aftermath of colliery closures in a single-industry area.
Mining underpinned the local economies and the speed of the decline and ultimate demise of the area industry dealt an economic body blow from which the local authorities have not yet recovered.
Our people, however, have not sat back and whinged. They have worked in partnership with local government and the private sector to expand and broaden the base of the local economy. Much work has been done to clean up the environment, to rid ourselves of the legacy of 200 years of coal mining. Award-winning country parks and lakes have replaced slag heaps. High-tech business parks with global telecommunication links now stand on colliery sites. Two major employers in the constituency have invested heavily in environmental improvements.
Through skilled management and a dedicated work force, the Alcan aluminium smelter has weathered two recessions. The company is now investing heavily in the future in opening the new aluminium-producing pot line with state-of-the-art emission controls. The fact that the company is able to do so is a personal tribute to the managing director, Mr. Frank McGravie, who never gave up hope. When complete, the plant will provide 150 much needed new, permanent jobs.
Synpac is a local Taiwanese-owned company. It manufactures in Wansbeck 10 per cent. of the world's supply of penicillin G. It has invested in new plant to turn effluent into high protein animal feedstock. We should applaud those industries that invest to protect our planet.
Also in the constituency is a unique project called Earth Balance. As the name implies, the project works in harmony with the environment. We have on site an organic farm and an organic bakery. In keeping with the finest traditions of the north-east, we also have an organic brewery. Electricity is produced on site by wind and hydro power, with solar energy also available. It is a community-based sustainable development and we are justly proud of it.
Air quality and the physical environment are clearly important and so, too, is our quality of life. Being in employment improves our quality of life. We have had

many successes recently in the area in attracting new jobs to it, but, in reality, we have hardly scratched the surface. There are unemployment rates of more than 30 per cent. in some wards.
For the first time, I am meeting third generation unemployed people. Who do these young people look to for an example? Who is at home to teach them the value and discipline of work? Who is there in the morning at six o'clock each and every day to get them out to work? Who is there in the evenings at the dinner table to share their day's experiences and to encourage them after an especially bad day? Sadly, many of these young people have no one to fill those roles. I am pleased, therefore, that it is one of the Government's priorities to offer hope and place an investment in the future of 250,000 young people. I hope that the training will be both relevant and wide ranging and in some way will compensate for disadvantaged backgrounds.
I was made redundant three years ago. I was fortunate because, within a few weeks, I regained employment. I did, however, sign on the dole along with many colleagues with whom I had worked for more than 25 years. Part of the team with which I worked signed on with me, including three highly skilled miners. They were proud, hard-working, diligent men, who genuinely contributed a great deal to society. They signed on as unskilled. They are still out of work. What a terrible human waste.
I am pleased to sit on the Government Benches, albeit a very long way from the Government Front Bench. I am delighted to support policies that harness the skills and talents of the people of this great nation.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I send a warm welcome to the new hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and congratulate him on his maiden speech. He gave the House a thorough tour of his constituency. I am sure that he will return to the important theme of unemployment in his constituency and the need to look forward to developing the future. That ties in with the wider issue of sustainable development because we cannot unlink the environment from social and economic sustainability.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on securing the debate and allowing the House the opportunity to discuss some of the key issues to be raised by Earth summit 2. The first so-called Earth summit took place almost five years ago in Rio. It was the most significant meeting held by the United Nations on sustainable development. The challenge is to ensure that the global desire for a more sustainable existence, so clearly expressed at Rio, maintains its momentum.
Much has already been achieved, but there is a great deal still to do and Britain needs to be setting the lead. The Government have stated that they want to put the environment at the heart of their administration, so they must work to put the environment at the heart of international negotiations. They must also ensure that the United Kingdom has a leading role in those negotiations.
The most pressing environmental challenge that we all face has already been taken up in the debate. The framework convention on climate change looks set to agree binding greenhouse gas emission targets at the Kyoto meeting on climate change in December. I have no


doubt that that should be seen as a concrete achievement in international regime building. I look forward also to the Government's climate change action plan. The new Government have set themselves a welcome and ambitious target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the main greenhouse gas, and they will require imaginative solutions for their targets to be met.
I would welcome an assurance from the Minister on comments reported in The Independent on 5 June, which were attributed to the new Green Minister. The article states that
the Environment minister told the conference Britain would not deliver on its new target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010 if other European Union nations did not go further in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
If we believe that the climate change threat is real—I think we all accept that it—it would be wrong to refuse to take action ourselves simply because other countries would be slow to follow our lead. Is the Minister able to assure us that the report in The Independent is inaccurate, and that the Government will press ahead with meeting their election commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent., irrespective of whether other EU countries go further, although maintaining pressure on them to do so? The best pressure to bring to bear will be that of showing a lead.

Mr. John Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman add to his question the very tough supplementary that if other nations are seriously to follow us, we must show them in advance precisely how we are to achieve our targets? If we fail to do that, they will not believe in the targets and we shall be worse than useless as a leader in international negotiations.

Mr. Taylor: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Government will give the House the opportunity, in Government time, fully to debate the actions that they propose. I hope that they will outline in detail how they plan to achieve their objectives, not merely state their objectives. There is a great gap between the will and the how, which has not been properly outlined.
The special session must provide the momentum for the Kyoto conference and remove blockages for negotiation so that legally binding targets can be agreed by industrial countries for the short term. I should also like to see an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures that have so far been taken on all greenhouse gases. If we cannot identify where we have succeeded and where we have failed, it will be difficult to meet the tougher targets that will be necessary to prevent a serious threat to human life.
Other agreements at Rio, such as the convention on biological diversity, have failed to achieve the same focus, and there has been little progress in implementing or funding the desertification convention. Once species and habitats are lost, they are gone for good. Too many have already been lost. Urgent action is needed to ensure that a comprehensive and effective global biodiversity plan is in place, so all countries should be urged to ratify the convention on biological diversity and should work to produce national and international strategies to conserve biodiversity.
Crucially, neither the framework convention on climate change nor the convention on biological diversity has agreed a programme of action or mobilised sufficient

financial resources to implement their aims in developing countries. As a result, their financial mechanism—the global environment facility—has been left largely without any clear strategic direction.
The greatest and potentially most intractable challenge has been financing our commitments to achieving environmental sustainability. In fact, the GEF budget amounted to under 0.004 per cent. of gross domestic product in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—about 50p per person per year in the UK. The UK should commit itself—I hope that the Minister can give some indication on this—to increasing its contribution to the GEF, and work to ensure that GEF activities are properly monitored.
We should also increase the proportion of our bilateral aid devoted to biodiversity. At the moment, it is just 1 per cent., which is far smaller than our major partners' allocations. We should show our international colleagues that we are serious about looking after our environment and encourage others to follow suit.
How we finance our international environmental commitments is likely to be at the centre of debate at next month's special session and is, I believe, fundamental to its success. Poverty around the globe is on the increase and, what is more, the disparity between rich and poor is growing. The need of developing countries for funds is at least as great now as it was in 1992. Since Rio, forests have continued to be cleared, wetlands have been substantially destroyed and the Earth's biodiversity further eroded. In many cases—most cases, probably—that is not through deliberate or wilful neglect, but because many developing countries simply do not have the resources to pursue more sustainable forms of development or to police effectively rules designed to protect the environment. One cannot tell a hungry family that they must stay hungry for the sake of protecting the global environment.
The developed countries have simply not fulfilled their commitments made at Rio to provide new and additional resources. Official development assistance fell from a peak of $62 billion in 1992 to around $53 billion in 1995, far outweighing the $3 billion in the GEF since 1992.
It is imperative for all our futures that poorer developing countries remain committed to the ambitious agenda and targets of Rio. If they are to do so, developed countries such as ours have to demonstrate at the United Nations special session that we are prepared to live up to the financial promises that we made, and that means ensuring that adequate financial resources are made available.
The UK Government can take a lead, ensuring that developed countries meet their aid targets of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product within 10 years. The UK does not meet that target at present, and in past years our commitment has fallen. Those cuts should be reversed, and I hope that the Government can announce a clear timetable for doing so. Without such a timetable, any vague promises are pretty much meaningless and certainly will not be believed in the developing world, which has bitter experience of what has gone on so far.
At the same time, the quality of aid must be improved. Although some progress has been made, too often aid continues to focus on large technology intensive projects rather than smaller sensitively planned projects that will yield environmental and social benefits. That is not good


news for those countries, and it is not good news for global sustainability. Although some things that Britain has done on this front have been good, much is poor.
We simply cannot separate environmental sustainability from economic sustainability or social sustainability. Working to eradicate global poverty must be high on the Government's agenda. It will be impossible to do so without looking closely at global trading arrangements. International trading organisation are still weighted heavily against environmental sustainability. We need reforms to the global trading regime. Multilateral environmental treaties, like the climate change convention, should no longer be open to endless challenge under World Trade Organisation rules. We also need, alongside environmental reforms to WTO rules, to make real progress on the development of sustainability indicators. The Government have gone some way on that, but, internationally—particularly with the OECD—there is still an awfully long way to go.
It will have taken eight years simply to begin to measure the problems defined at Rio. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that work on this will be done as a matter of urgency.If we can achieve all of this, I hope that Earth summit 2 will go down in history as much as Rio has already, this time not as the beginning of change, but as the moment when the world showed that, it has not just woken up to a problem but can take the tough decisions that will do something about it.

Ms Joan Walley: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on initiating the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy), whose constituency I have visited. I look forward to working with him in this Parliament to ensure that we have a Parliament that addresses environmental issues.
When the Government go to New York to Earth summit 2, it is crucial that our delegates know that they have the whole-hearted support of the House in the very important work that needs to be done.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to her new post.
It is crucial that we build a cross-party alliance on green issues. Indeed, it seems to be growing. We have seen many changes already in this new Parliament: the majority that we now have on the Government Benches and the large influx of women into our Parliament. However, if our Parliament is truly to address the needs of the next millennium, we need to nurture the cross-party alliance on green issues, on issues of environmental sustainability. In fact, it was the hon. Member for South Suffolk, on the Opposition Benches, who initiated the debate, although many others have also tried. We need to work in partnership.
Just as we need to work in partnership with our Government delegates who are going to New York, so we need to work in partnership with all those throughout the country who are working on Agenda 21 issues, and who are working to get the message across locally and internationally—bottom up and top down. I make those comments as the vice-president of the Socialist

Environmental Research Association. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who wishes to make her maiden speech shortly, shares the same sentiments. I want to ensure that we grasp this opportunity.
Our Prime Minister, our Deputy Prime Minister and other members of the Government are going out to New York shortly. I want them not just to seize the leadership of this debate in terms of the British Parliament but to deal with the issue on the world stage. We must seize the green mantle, because time is running out, just as time is running out for us in this debate—a debate which will give our Prime Minister greater authority when he goes out to make environmental points. We have a wonderful opportunity to assume that leadership.
The United Nations has made great progress, but, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) pointed out, we have not seen the progress that we want to see on the world stage. That is not the fault of any one person or Government; it is our failure to negotiate the international agreements that are needed and to tackle the environmental agenda with the urgency and priority that are needed. We need to say not only what we want, what we really really want, but how we will put it into practice.
That is why I want the Government to find a way in New York of overcoming the failure so far of the climate change convention to promote energy saving. That is why I want us to press for change within the global trading system. Despite all the UN's work, it still has not got it right. The trade and environment committee of the World Trade Organisation has not yet reconciled protection of the environment with global trading. We must develop a sustainable global trade regime and Earth summit 2 in New York is our best opportunity and challenge yet to do that. For example, the GATT treaty should be amended to confirm that the multilateral environmental treaties, such as the climate change convention, the biodiversity convention, the Montreal protocol, the Basel convention and the convention on international trade in endangered species, should all be exempt from challenge under GATT.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary comes to consider section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, I hope that she will study the recommendations that have been made and do what she can to speed up the process of addressing biodiversity issues. I cannot miss this opportunity to mention the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species conference which is taking place in Zimbabwe at the moment, of which the basking sharks issue is part and parcel.
That brings me to how we seize the green mantle. To do that, we must put our own house in order. Time is short and I do not have time to go through all the issues that I would like to raise which cut across every Department, from the Foreign Office and the Treasury to International Development, from the Environment to Transport, and so on. I commend to my hon. Friend a document produced by the Council for the Protection of Rural England in conjunction with the Green Alliance which has had an input from many groups with which we should be working in partnership, entitled "Have We Put Our Own House in Order?" That provides a starting point for not just debate but the actions and strategies that we now need to be preparing which will cut across and transcend the work of not just Government Departments but local government and local authorities, which in turn


links to the international and European agreements in which the Government, on behalf of all Parliaments of all people concerned about environmental issues, will take part.
I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and I have taken part in debates on the regulation of the energy industry and the liberalisation of energy markets. I know that other Select Committees have considered other aspects. When we have the White Paper on the environment and when the Government's strategies on environmental sustainability are up and running, it is crucial that the Government, perhaps with the Procedure Committee, consider the way in which Select Committees work, so that environmental issues are at the heart of all Government policies, and consider how we will charge ourselves with ensuring that we contribute to what the Government do while ensuring that our house is in order.
I recently met a delegation from an organisation called Gender 21. In the Agenda 21 debate, women have been classified as a vulnerable group in terms of putting forward proposals on how women can take part in the environmental debate. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to ensure that the Government's civil service delegates who will be batting for us in New York meet representatives from Gender 21 to ensure that women's issues are firmly taken up and that great heed is taken of them at the New York summit.
I wondered how to put across the need to put environmental sustainability on our agenda. I should like to think that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor presents his Budget shortly that will also be at the top of his agenda. I appreciate that things cannot change overnight and that it will take time, but I want us to move towards green taxes. Perhaps it is time to replace the Chancellor's Budget box with a rucksack made of recyclable, long-wearing material, which he could put on his back when he cycles from No. 11 to the House of Commons to make his Budget speech. I hope that, by the end of this Parliament, green taxes will be firmly at the heart of Government policy.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the debate, although it is unfortunate that we have only one and a half hours. I hope that before future major international environmental conferences, such as the one in New York, we can have three-hour debates so that the Government and the delegation understand the feeling of hon. Members.
Like many hon. Members, I welcome the Government's strong commitment to the environment in their opening statements, the appointment of Ministers with responsibility for the environment and the strong delegation that will go to New York next week.
The Rio summit some years ago was an incredibly important turning point, because it was the culmination of many years of environmental campaigning by many people. Lots of wondrous statements were made and great commitments enunciated by Governments, but global warming continues, as does the destruction of the planet's forests and many of its species.
One of the key opportunities that will come in New York will be a proposal for a much tougher UN agency with powers to control and enforce limits on carbon emissions and many other gases that lead to global

warming. Unless we are prepared to take the necessary steps to control emissions and environmental destruction, we will simply have a series of Earth summits every five years or so which will wring their hands about the on-going problems of environmental destruction, but have little power to do anything about them.
Some tough decisions lie ahead for the Government. I hope that they will maintain their commitment by ending the road-building programme, limiting the use of the motor car and increasing the use of public transport. In addition, some serious questions will be raised about the use of market mechanisms in solving environmental problems. Parallel to the Rio summit was the closure of the UN office on multinational companies and the establishment of the World Trade Organisation which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said, has not come to terms with its environmental concerns. Instead, it is promoting free trade and the movement of goods around the world, which is at odds with protecting the environment.
For example, it is the height of madness to have undernourished people in many countries in Africa working extremely hard to produce early vegetables which are then flown by jet plane to London, Berlin, Paris and New York so that we can all enjoy them, while at the same time a set-aside policy leads to the non-use of available agricultural land in Britain and other parts of western Europe. The question of food miles is a serious one. If a taxation system on aircraft fuel leads to less of that nonsense, that will be welcome.
The climate change issue will dominate the summit. The first four months of this year have shown that the global average temperature is 0.37 deg C above the average global temperature between 1951 and 1980. We are at the point when the planet's global temperature is likely to be the highest ever for 100,000 years. Those who say that global warming is not serious or important because it is all part of a cycle of climate change are seriously missing the point. Clearly, there are cycles in global temperature, with warming and cooling, and there have been ice ages, and so on; but anyone considering the matter would say that the rate of extraction and burning of fossil fuels and the waste of such fuels with the most inefficient transport system possible—the endless use of the private motor car—must be a major contributory factor to global warming. We must act seriously.
I am alarmed when I read excellent publications such as that of the Global Commons Institute which has shown in graphic terms the extent of the use of fossil fuel and the potential for saving it, and the amount of money being put by mainly American oil giants into producing bogus, nonsensical reports which claim that oil exploration has no effect while, at the same time, those companies try to gain oil exploration licences throughout the Atlantic. We have to call a halt. We must protect the planet and the environment, but we cannot do that if, at the same time, we increase the rate of burning and exploitation of fossil fuels.
We must recognise that it is a question not just of Governments laying down the law to people but of harnessing the wishes of people around the planet for environmental protection and for survival. I often think of Chico Mendes, who lost his life in Brazil because he attempted to defend the rain forest. I think of people around the world who try to defend their environment. Those people are often fighting the very forces that fund


bogus institutes such as multinational oil companies. We will read much more about green guerrillas in the next five to 10 years. People in Latin America are trying to protect their land against oil exploration, just as people in the industrial north are trying to protect their environment.
One of the good outcomes of the Rio summit was the promotion of local Agenda 21 groups. I have the privilege of being the chair of the Islington Agenda 21 group, and I am always amazed at the energy that so many people put into producing very valuable reports on these matters.

Mr. Anthony Colman: Does my hon. Friend agree with and support the views of local government world wide that the United Nations General Assembly special session should take two actions? First, it should adopt global targets for local Agenda 21, as only 20 national Governments, including our own, have gone ahead with national programmes. Secondly, before the sixth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1998, it should set up a study to investigate the barriers to local sustainable development that are created by central Governments.

Mr. Corbyn: I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's two points, and I pay tribute to his work in promoting Agenda 21 across London.
Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give us a commitment that the Government will seriously consider harnessing all the good work of local Agenda 21 groups around the country to give them a regional and national focus, and providing those groups with the funding necessary to enable them to continue the valuable work that has been achieved thus far?
The debate is too short: the issue is far too big to be dealt with in this way. I hope that the House will return to this subject straight after the New York summit, ahead of the Kyoto conference.

Ms Debra Shipley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this important debate. As an executive member of the Socialist Environmental Research Association, and, as the new Member for Stourbridge in the west midlands, I am keen to highlight for my constituents the important link between global initiatives, which we have discussed today, and the environment that they experience daily.
Stourbridge is an attractive and once thriving town. It is completely encircled by a busy ring road, which many people believe blights its regenerative potential. Roads throughout the constituency are choked with traffic fumes. The area is characterised by urban villages, such as the black country communities of Lye, Cradley and Quarry Bank. They are proud communities with a strong sense of industrial heritage and a strong work ethos, and I am proud to represent them.
Nowhere is the work ethos more apparent than in our schools, where teachers work hard to provide a high standard of excellence. I recognise and value their contribution. Throughout the constituency, teachers are well supported by not only parents, who recognise that

we have a good education service from Dudley council, but an army of behind-the-scenes staff—caretakers, dinner ladies and secretaries—who all care very much about our children's well-being.
As a candidate, I stood outside school gates giving out leaflets to parents. I was approached time and again by lollipop ladies who told me about traffic pollution. They care about children's health, and they want me to do something about it. They care about the traffic fumes that the children breathe in every day.
Many schools in my constituency are situated on busy roads. Children breathe in polluted air on the way to school, in their classrooms and in the playgrounds. One in seven children suffer from asthma: the figure is one in five if they live near a major road. Earth summit 2, which reviews Agenda 21, is, therefore, important to the lollipop ladies of Stourbridge. I welcome the Government's commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010: that is a welcome start to deal with a difficult problem.
Pensioners in Stourbridge are also affected by the summit. Like pensioners across the country, they often survive on pitifully small incomes, and often have to struggle to heat homes. Local Agenda 21 can touch their lives: insulating homes, saving fuel and lowering bills would substantially affect the quality of their lives.
Young people can also gain from the summit through local jobs created by environmental initiatives. I am pleased to say that, in my constituency, a new cycle path has just this week been created along a canal tow path. The canal is a major and much-loved recreational facility enjoyed by anglers, walkers, families and now cyclists. Our new environmental task forces can open up more facilities, rejuvenate our parks and turn some of our neglected and vandalised cemeteries into wildlife havens. Plenty can be done at local level to improve our environment, and plenty can be done by government at national and international level.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Churches of Stourbridge. Through public meetings, they have raised issues of global environment. Congregations in Wollaston, Amblecote, Pedmore and Norton have discussed the vital issues of sustainable development, such as forestry, drinking water, fish stocks, as well as energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy. I sincerely hope that Britain will take a lead on those matters during Earth summit 2, and will make them a high priority.
Earth summit 2, which focuses on sustainable development, should also set a target for the climate change convention to be held in Kyoto later this year. To bring about change we must have vision, and we must have action. I have a vision of a renaissance for my constituency, and it is now a real possibility. Proposals include the pedestrianisation of Stourbridge town centre, the opening of more pathways and cycle routes, creation of new jobs, rejuvenation of open spaces and investment in urban industrial architecture and heritage.
We already have plenty of good things in Stourbridge: most notably food and drink. Many people who come to the black country for the first time remark on our excellent, small, local pubs. Well, that is not surprising, as the local brew is the best.
It is tradition in a maiden speech to make positive comments about one's predecessor. He did two things well: he held regular constituency surgeries—I give him


full credit for that, because it is important for Members of Parliament to do so—and, I am told, he was a keen customer of the excellent balti restaurants in Lye. I shall be only too happy to carry on his good work.
I shall conclude on a serious note. It is easy for some people to dismiss far-away conferences on global issues as "nothing to do with me". I hope that I have shown that it is in all our interests to take urgent action. The quality of our environment is rapidly deteriorating, and the very real concerns raised by the lollipop ladies of Stourbridge are the same concerns for which solutions must be found at Earth summit 2.

Mr. John Gummer: I congratulate the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on their maiden speeches. They both showed great knowledge of their constituencies, and brought the importance of the global issues with which Earth summit 2 will be concerned into local focus. That is essential if we are to make the great issues of climate change and biodiversity real to all our population, which is crucial.
I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for her comments. She said that there should be a bipartisan approach to these issues. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), and her right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for their kind comments about the environmental steps taken by the previous Government in general and by me in particular. I assure the hon. Lady that the Opposition will support the Government in every way possible to promote our joint environmental ends.
I cannot resist reminding the Under-Secretary from time to time that it would have been nice to have that bipartisan approach, for which I sought hard, when we were in power. However, I shall remind her of that only occasionally, winsomely, when I wish to do so. On the other hand, I must tell the hon. Lady that I shall press her—and, I am sure she will be pleased to hear, her colleagues in other Departments—to provide the "how" for the "what" that we share. She must therefore take it as helpful, rather than as in any way destructive of her position, if I constantly press members of the Government to tell us what they are doing to make a reality of the targets that have now been set out.
It is well known that we signed up to the target of a 15 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union and that, for 10 per cent., it was clearly worked out how that reduction would be achieved, country by country. I have always felt that it would be difficult to provide an equally accurate statement of how we could achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2, emissions, which is a tough target.
The Government have accepted the target and I shall support them in reaching it, but they really must say how they intend to do so. I shall give three examples of the sort of "how" that we shall need. First, we shall need an assessment of what extra will have to be done to make up for the changes in taxation proposed by the Government. I shall not argue about those changes. I simply say that changes are proposed, that if they take place they will have an effect and that we shall have to estimate what that effect will be. We want to know precisely what steps will be taken to replace what is lost.
Secondly, the House will not put up with arguments that simply say, "We shall do a lot more about energy efficiency." No one could be more enthusiastic about energy efficiency than I am, but an example of one of the problems is that, as we all know, if we insulate the home of a pensioner, energy savings may not result; instead, the home may become warmer. People may spend the same amount of money, while living in conditions that they feel are more comfortable. It is not for us to say whether that judgment is right, but we must properly assess the real effect of such measures on emissions, and I submit that we have not yet done so. We shall press the Government on that subject.
Thirdly, among the details that we shall have to pin down are the rather frightening proposals that the non-fossil fuel obligation should, rather curiously, be spread to fossil fuels. In both logical and linguistic terms, I find that difficult to understand. The Government have made a commitment that so-called "clean coal" will be subsidised, but the House knows that "clean coal" is not clean; it is one of those fake phrases. "Clean" coal may be less dirty in terms of sulphur, but it is no less dirty in terms of CO1 emissions. The idea that we should increase the amount of power that we generate using that dirty coal, pretending that it is clean, and without understanding what we are doing, runs wholly contrary to the Government's policies. I do not say that because I wish to score points in any sense. I want to win for us all. I want to win for the Department of the Environment against those who do not have the same things at heart.
That leads me to my next main point. We need not only a tough bipartisan approach, pressing all the time, but the kind of personal commitment that alone will carry such changes through, not only in government here but in the European Union and beyond. That being so, we must recognise that climate change is a reality, and we must be more than missionary in demanding the alterations in our life style that alone will meet the challenges involved.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) attacked all the international oil companies, because there are some remarkably good ones that are taking the matter seriously. We should distinguish between those that are trying, and those that are still manifestly wrongly supporting the American coal industry in their antagonism to the science.
I shall continue my battle to insist that aviation fuel should be taxed in Europe as a whole. I sought to bring that about when I was Secretary of State for the Environment. We have to start in Europe. The Under-Secretary will find that we have to start everything there; the European Union is crucial to the future of the environment.
No country can do on its own what needs to be done. We produce only 3 per cent. of the overall pollution, so the European Union has to deal with the whole subject, and set an example, because the Americans are way behind. Our actions within the EU are therefore crucial.
The Under-Secretary will also find that she has to do something about the United States. It takes the work of 120 people to provide the energy that each American uses, whereas it takes the work of 60 people to provide the energy that each European uses, the work of eight people for the energy that each Chinaman uses, and the work of one person for the energy that each Bangladeshi uses. That tells us a great deal about who grabs most and who wastes most.
The fact that the United States cannot meet even the meagre targets that the EU has set, although it uses twice as much energy as we do, and certainly does not have a standard of living twice as high as ours, shows how wasteful the Americans are. Anyone who has visited the United States knows what that means. One has to put one's coat on in the summer because the air conditioning is so high, and take it off in the winter because the heating is so high. We must raise such issues, so I thank the House for allowing my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to raise the matter in a short debate.
We are talking not only about the future of our children and grandchildren—although, goodness knows, that is important enough—but about the future of the planet, and about making it possible for people to live on it at all.
That is why I must tell the Under-Secretary that this debate is not good enough as a forum for discussion before the Earth summit. The Government should have introduced a full day's debate. I do not blame them, because it would have been difficult to arrange that so soon after the election, but I ask the hon. Lady to find out whether we can debate the subject again immediately after the summit.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I have only a very short time, because I have promised to finish speaking soon.
It would be good to have a full debate, and I should like it to be in the middle of the week, so that some of our colleagues on both sides of the House, who do not understand how serious things are, may wander in and realise the importance of the subjects that we are discussing. I hope that that will be possible.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will recognise that we must learn not only to live differently ourselves, but to live differently in the world as a whole. The concept of global commons is vital, so long as it really is global and really is commons. If we ask people to accept the importance of intellectual property, we must also ask people in the west to accept the idea that we should pay for the basic materials that we use that come from the biodiversity of the world, and are in the ownership of some of the poorest nations, which do not now get much back for them.
That is a kind of parallelism; it is a question of paying. We have earned what we have by pollution. Our pollution has provided us with riches, so we have an enormous responsibility to help those on whom we now rely to save the planet. The north-south divide, and the north-south dialogue, will be crucial when we come to those negotiations.
I do not have time to do more than refer briefly to two important matters. What my hon. Friends and others have said about the World Trade Organisation is right. If we want the financial advantages of free trade, we must demand the moral advantages of world responsibility in trade. We cannot grab for ourselves merely the money that comes from trade, without recognising that that in turn demands a payment—a moral payment—and a responsibility throughout the world.
Lastly, I shall challenge the Under-Secretary on one of the most difficult subjects of all. Yet another meeting about fishing is to take place in the House, and I know

that many Members from both sides of the House will be holding forth there about fishing. However, they will not be holding forth about the fact that every fishery ground in the world is over-fished, and that Britain over-fishes just as every other country in the European Union does, so we need to do something about over-fishing, or there will be no fish left.
We need to achieve those ends, and I ask the hon. Lady to admit that some tough measures therefore have to be taken. She will have the support of the Opposition, but it will be the kind of probing support that will ensure that the measures taken live up to the targets that she, properly, has placed before us.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on initiating this debate, although I feel somewhat daunted in attempting to answer in 10 minutes the many questions on global and interrelated issues raised in the debate. I hope that the House will bear in mind the time constraints, and I will try to deal as best I can with the issues raised.
The new Government have put sustainable development at the heart of policy making at home and abroad, and this is apparent from the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in bringing together the issues of the environment, transport and the regions. We also recognise that there are other cross-departmental issues that tie in directly with sustainability issues across government. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, in his mission statement for the Foreign Office, and the Secretary of State for International Development have also given a completely new focus to their Departments' approach to sustainable development, which will help in our negotiations.
In the short time since taking office, we have made clear our determination to make faster progress than our predecessors. I welcome the support given by Opposition Members today and I look forward to their probing, as they check that we are planning to meet what we all admit are extremely tough targets. We must meet those targets if we are to protect the future of our planet.
I wish to deal with some of the issues raised in the debate, but, first, I want to congratulate the two maiden speakers who demonstrated once again the high standard of maiden speeches being enjoyed by the House—a record number. My hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) and for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) demonstrated their abilities and their concern for their constituents. I am sure that we all look forward to more high-quality speeches from my hon. Friends.
On aviation tax, I am happy to say that the Government believe that we have to tax aviation fuel and we will support the Dutch presidency's attempt to have a look at whether we can do this on a European Union basis only. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Suffolk will appreciate that we have to get international agreement on this important issue; otherwise there is the risk of perverse incentives applying. The Government will continue to press on that issue.
Another important issue raised in the debate is the relationship between the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organisation on


environmental agreements, and the fact that there is often tension between the two. The Government are well aware of the position and believe that international environmental conventions must be exempt from challenge by GATT and the WTO if they are to mean anything—be it the Montreal convention, the Basel convention or the convention on international trade in endangered species, which is currently subject to some trade threats with respect to leg-hold traps.
It is no good the world community putting together important conventions on environmental issues, implying real sacrifices and tough decisions, if they can have holes punched through them by the WTO or GATT. In New York, we will look to ensure that we reach agreement on exempting such conventions; otherwise, the problem is that, the more effective the convention, the more likely it is be to have holes punched in it by GATT in an attempt to dismantle it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the extremely important issue of mahogany. As one of the major importers of mahogany, the United Kingdom must continue to work with the producer countries. We agree with my hon. Friend that a ban would be wrong, but we must either unilaterally or internationally reach agreements to prevent the wanton destruction of these very important resources. He can rest assured that we will try to make progress on the issue, which we realise is extremely complex.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk asked what the Government's energy efficiency targets were, and I can confirm that we are seeking a 20 per cent. reduction in energy use in Government buildings by the year 2000. My experience of the new Eland house office block—which is environmentally sound—is that we have had three floods there in two weeks. We could do with it being drier, although that block is good for the climate and for energy efficiency.
The Government have announced our determination to reverse the downward trend of aid from 0.27 per cent.—where it currently rests—up to 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, and a White Paper on development will deal with the issue. I hope that the White Paper will deal with the quality, as well as the quantity, of aid. The Department of the Environment is reviewing the national sustainable development strategy. We have announced new and more stringent targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We also propose that the House establish a new Select Committee to consider the environmental effects of policies and actions across the whole of government. We hope that that will allow the legislature to give an extra push to our commitment to green the whole of government.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Before the Under-Secretary moves on from the issue of targets—I welcome the establishment of a Committee, but that is another matter—I wish to ask her a question. It has been reported that the Government have said that their 20 per cent. carbon dioxide target was dependent on action by other European countries. Can she clarify whether that was correct?

Angela Eagle: My understanding is that, regardless of what other countries do, we are not going to offer completely unilateral targets. We hope that what we do

will put pressure at Kyoto on others to come up with equally binding targets, which we hope they will deliver. We are committed to our 20 per cent. target.
In a change of emphasis from the previous Government, we believe that progress on sustainable development—so vital to the future of our planet—depends on issues of social equity and poverty eradication, which require unequivocal leadership from the developed world. From that point of view, I commend almost all the speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) who is a well-known expert on the matter and is going to UNGASS in one of his other guises with my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley).
We believe that poverty reduction is one of the key areas that has been neglected in the process. The first principle of the Rio declaration states that human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. We recognise that; but, in the developing world, 500,000 women die each year in childbirth and 160 million children are malnourished. One quarter of the world's people remain in severe poverty, although it is estimated that the cost of eradicating poverty is a mere 1 per cent. of global income.
We believe that this problem must be tackled if we are to make progress towards a more environmentally sustainable world and we want to put more emphasis on that. We accept that there are difficulties between north and south in this respect and we want to play our part as a Government in putting them right so that we can then take the Earth summit 2 process forward more successfully. We strongly support the plans outlined in the OECD development assistance committee report, which says that the world should set itself targets—including that of halving world poverty—and should reverse the downward trend in natural resource degradation by 2015. We shall push for agreement on this at the special session.
All donor countries should work in partnership with developing countries to achieve measurable progress. After all, it is the poor, not the rich, who are the first to suffer when the environment is damaged. To realise the truth, we have only to think about the way in which rising sea levels could affect coastal communities in some of the poorest parts of Asia, or about subsistence farmers struggling to grow their crops in degraded soil. The Government believe that we need to integrate poverty reduction and environmental protection into mainstream economic and development policies. We need to make the most of opportunities to reduce poverty, and protect the environment at the same time.
There are many issues that I have been unable even to touch on in this all-too-brief debate, such as climate change, forests, oceans, fish stocks and fresh water. I hope that this is the first of many debates on those important matters. I look forward to working with hon. Members of all parties to make progress.
We have a strong team of Ministers going to the United Nations sessions, which shows the Government's commitment in this extremely important area. The team will be led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and will include my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Minister for the Environment.

Residential Care (Cornwall)

Ms Candy Atherton: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a problem that affects hundreds of people in my constituency and throughout Cornwall.
Before dealing with the problems of long-term care for the elderly in Cornwall, I should like, in my maiden speech, to describe my constituency. It is the penultimate seat before the Atlantic and America, a place of almost indescribable beauty, stretching from Gwithian to Portreath on the north coast, while the Carrick roads and Helford river form its southerly boundaries.
The north coast is wild and the south coast is bathed in warm air that gives us some of the world's most famous and breathtaking gardens—Trebah being one which readily comes to mind. We have creeks and coves, windswept cliffs and sun-soaked and glorious beaches, but that beauty, like so much in life, cannot mask the underlying problems that scar the area.
Unemployment is at 10 per cent. officially, yet, on estates in Redruth and Camborne, it is nearer 90 per cent. among men of working age. The old industries, such as mining, quarrying, fishing and farming, are in decline and what work there is, is often low paid and seasonal, in the tourist industry.
The last working tin mine in Europe provides a mainstay of employment in the north of the constituency, as do the Falmouth docks in the south, but where thousands were employed years ago, only handfuls of hundreds are today. Many more jobs used to be found in the tin and quarrying industries and still more depended on the mines.
Today, we have the internationally famous Camborne school of mines that has trained hundreds of people from throughout the world in its many arts. There is widespread dismay in the area because the welcome plan for a university for Cornwall in Penzance includes the proposal to relocate that famous school out of our area.
Before making this speech, I read my predecessors' maiden speeches. The last four all referred to problems of unemployment. Sebastian Coe, the former Olympic runner, spoke of the endemic unemployment, as did his predecessors, the broadcaster David Mudd, Dr. Dunwoody and Frank Harold Hayman. Senior Members may remember Harold Hayman, a Labour Member of Parliament who is still spoken of with love and affection by my constituents. "If you do half as well as our Harold," they tell me, "you won't be doing half bad."
My priority as a Member of Parliament will be to bring new work and opportunities to my constituents. I look forward with relish to the introduction of a national minimum wage which, alongside reform of our benefits system, will enable my constituents to enjoy employment and a living wage.
I shall be keen to ensure that we have a development agency to tackle the problems facing the fishing and farming communities, improve the quality of our housing and provide new opportunities for our young people through jobs and training. In Cornwall, we are concerned to ensure that the seasonal nature of much of our employment does not result in fewer opportunities for our

young people and the long-term unemployed. The number of people enduring long-term unemployment is greater in reality than the figures imply.
I could entertain the House with the follies of South West Water. We pay the highest water bills in the country for a service that leaves many of our beaches polluted and fails to provide the long-term investment for which Falmouth, in particular, is crying out. However, this debate is about Cornwall Care.
I believe that all Members from Cornwall must work and speak together on issues of concern to the county. There is much that the new Government must do to remedy the ills of the past 18 years of Conservative rule. I am certain that there will be times when the Liberal Democrats are critical of the new Government; equally, there will be times when I am critical of the actions of Liberal Democrats. That is the nature of all good relationships: we all fall out occasionally. This is one of those times.
The tragedy that has prompted this debate has led some to dub the charity, "Cornwall Doesn't Care", but I leave it to right hon. and hon. Members to decide for themselves. The problem is one that all too many local authorities have had to face. The Conservative Government slanted the figures so that it was financially better for many authorities to transfer their residential homes for the elderly to housing association or charity status.
Several years ago, Cornwall county council recognised that it was facing a problem with its 18 residential homes for the elderly. Two and a half years ago, a report was produced that suggested that four homes should be closed. Understandably, there was uproar when it was published. People, including the then chair of policy and resources, in whose ward one of the homes was located, do not want their local homes to close.
The controlling group proposed that a new charity, Cornwall Care, should be created. The county council would retain ownership of the homes but the services would be delivered by Cornwall Care. Last April, the new charity took control of the services and announced that existing staff would have to sign new contracts of employment considerably worsening their terms and conditions.
Many of us recognised that the figures did not add up and that the new charity would be forced to take action when the staff were transferred into their employment. I met many of the staff, some of whom faced losing more than £300 a month. That was their mortgage, and many told me that they would not be able to survive financially under the new terms.
For weeks, pressure was put on those caring members of staff to sign the new contracts. They were told that if they failed to sign, they would lose their jobs. I have some knowledge of transfer of undertakings law and I joined many others in publicly warning the charity that it would face industrial tribunals.
Eventually, 249 staff decided to take their cases to an industrial tribunal. All were dismissed. That was not an easy decision for them to make. Many had worked for the county council for more than 20 years, and I know that their decision caused them great anguish and misery. To a man and a woman—they were mostly women—they said that they loved working with the residents and wanted to continue doing so, but that they could not and would not sign the contracts.
The case was heard in Truro in the middle of the general election campaign. The former staff won and the result was widely publicised in the national media. Since then, the situation has deteriorated. The charity has announced that it will be forced into liquidation if an appeal is unsuccessful, and I understand that it has recently said that it faced severe financial problems whatever the result of the appeal. That has meant that existing staff are concerned for their futures and that residents—and their families—are worried about where they will live. The staff who won the industrial tribunal feel pressure not to take up their legal entitlement and a general miasma of worry is hanging in the air.
During the election campaign, I met folk in tears about the situation. I met one woman, who was clutching a letter from Cornwall Care and who was in tears on her doorstep. She implored me to act as soon as I won the election, because she was so worried about her mother, who was a resident in one of the homes in my constituency. That was one reason why I, with many other hon. Members, signed an early-day motion about Cornwall Care last month.
Meanwhile, the county council, which was embroiled in elections itself during the general election campaign, said that the problem was for Cornwall Care to resolve. My intention in requesting this Adjournment debate was to knock a few heads together at Cornwall Care and the council. The county council, as the owner and purchaser of the service, has a responsibility to resolve the problem. Occasionally, local government gets its priorities wrong and sometimes councillors make the wrong decisions. When Labour local authorities err, as a party and a Government, we have rightly condemned them. It is time for the Liberal Democrats to do the same.
I have consulted the Liberal Democrats' general election manifesto, which was entitled "Make the Difference". It states:
Older people in Britain should be able to look forward to a retirement of security, opportunity and dignity. Older people feel that they are fast becoming Britain's forgotten generation.
Many of the residents of Cornwall Care feel that they have been forgotten, that they have no security and that the whole sorry mess is very undignified.
Many of us believe that the county council knew that Cornwall Care would lose at an industrial tribunal. It is not right for local authorities to transfer a problem to another body rather than face the political flak. The residents and their families and the former and current staff need to be reassured about their futures. The whole sorry mess could, and should, have been avoided. The elderly in Cornwall deserve better and I call on the Liberal Democrats in Parliament, from whom I would like to hear on the issue some day, to demand that their colleagues on Cornwall county council to resolve the problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on her maiden speech. It showed passion, conviction and high intelligence, and was in the best tradition of maiden speeches in that it touched on a matter dear to her heart and those of her constituents. We look forward to more such contributions in the many years during which she will grace the House.
My hon. Friend began her speech by referring to her predecessor as a Labour Member of Parliament in Falmouth and Camborne, Frank Hayman. She stirred childhood memories of mine, because Frank Hayman was known in Cornwall and throughout the west country for his radical and caring contribution to the politics of the region. At that time, my grandparents, who retired to the west country for the beauty of its vistas and the friendliness of its people—which, as my hon. Friend mentioned, are the main reasons for its attractiveness—lived in Exmouth in Devon. There was a shortage of Labour Members in Devon for a time, but I am happy to say that has been remedied by the election of my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). Frank Hayman was pre-eminent in the Labour party as parliamentary private secretary to the then leader of the Opposition, Hugh Gaitskell and his name always brought a cheer to my grandparents' household in Withycombe Raleigh. I therefore have great pleasure in responding to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne.
The number of senior citizens drawn to the west country means that the issue of care for the elderly is important in Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne is right to give that issue the prominence that she has by requesting an Adjournment debate. I can assure her that the Government are committed to ensuring that we introduce a proper structure for the long-term residential care of the elderly. We are determined to meet their needs and achieve value for money while preserving their dignity. They are still able to make a valuable contribution to the community and we must not ignore that. They deserve the dignity that comes from knowing that their place in the community is secure.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the problems affecting the security of elderly people in her constituency. We are concerned about whether the Cornwall Care trust will be able to continue to operate, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government will not stand by and allow people to be made homeless if the trust collapses. The Government, together with local authorities, have a responsibility to ensure that old people do not find themselves in that position. Through the social services inspectorate, we are monitoring the situation closely to ensure that Cornwall county council properly exercises its social services duties to vulnerable people in need of residential care.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister will be aware that I led an all-party delegation from the county council to meet his predecessor. It is notable that, with the exception of one hon. Gentleman who has just arrived, no members of the Conservative party are present in the Chamber, because it is unrepresented in Cornwall. The previous Minister made it clear that he wanted the county council to be completely detached from all provision of residential care. He wanted it all put out to the private sector. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the new Government take a different attitude. I ask the Minister to recognise that many other local authorities, including Labour ones, have had to adopt similar provisions to those in Cornwall. Those authorities will


listen carefully to the assurance that he has just given that the Government will be prepared to help the authorities— hope, financially—to maintain their responsibilities.

Mr. Boateng: I make it clear that we recognise that, alongside local authorities, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that no old people are made homeless when a trust such as the one in Cornwall collapses. I shall come in due course to the Government's attitude towards the balance of private-public provision and the role that we believe voluntary, private and statutory sectors should play.
The county council has assured the social services inspectorate that it is fully aware of its responsibilities towards residents and that it will act to protect their interest. Contingency plans have been made to cover the transfer of residents from homes owned by Cornwall Care in the event that the trust collapses. Any such transfer will be made over a reasonable period of time and will take full account of residents' individual needs. We shall monitor the situation very closely in that regard.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne for drawing the matter to the attention of the House. She is right—it may grieve hon. Members on the Liberal Benches—to point out that the controlling party on the county council, the Liberal Democrat party, must bear some responsibility for what has arisen. It does bear some responsibility. It has, of course, the responsibility to ensure that it puts in place arrangements that protect, secure and safeguard the position of senior citizens for whose care it is responsible. I hope and believe that it will be mindful of that responsibility.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No, I have given way enough to Liberal Democrats.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that we shall do all in our power to ensure that the ruling party has available to it the advice that the social services inspectorate is on hand to give. The Liberal Democrat ruling party can be sure that that advice will be forthcoming.
I look forward to visiting the west country—tomorrow, as it happens—where I shall be meeting the assistant director of social services for Cornwall, Sandra Whitehead, with whom I shall certainly raise the concerns expressed in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I shall do so not least because Sandra Whitehead will be accompanied by the director of Age Concern, which I have no doubt has its own concerns about the welfare of residents.
My hon. Friend highlighted the fact that very many members of our older generation feel disenchanted and disenfranchised. They feel that they have been let down—and they were shamefully let down by the previous Government. It is our intention to address those feelings of betrayal. We are determined to bring senior citizens very much into the centre of our policy

making and provision. We are determined that they shall be empowered and enabled by the process, rather than disenfranchised, as they understandably and justifiably feel that they are.
We want consistency and fairness, which is why we have made clear our intention to introduce a long-term care charter that tells people what standards and services they are entitled to expect from health, social services and housing. In developing that charter, we shall work closely with service users to ensure that their views are taken on board. We believe in genuine consultation in developing policies. Had such consultation taken place earlier in Cornwall, had those in a position to affect events been able to draw on the wisdom of our senior citizens and organisations that represent them, we would not find ourselves on the sorry path on which we find ourselves today.
We attach importance to proceeding not on the basis of whether provision is in the public or private sector or on the basis that characterised the previous Government's attitude of private good, public bad—that was a previous dispensation and is no longer so—but with determination to ensure that what counts is quality; that what matters is value added to the lives of the recipients of care and value for money for those who are called on through their taxes and contributions at local and national level. We intend to ensure that people get such value.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne referred to some matters that are the subject of an industrial tribunal and an appeals process. She will understand why I cannot involve myself in such matters, which are for the industrial tribunal and the courts, where they and the issues that have arisen from litigation are being addressed. Industrial tribunals are independent judicial bodies and Ministers cannot comment on their decisions or intervene, as I am sure my hon. Friend understands.
It is important, not only Ministers but for the whole House—my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne did it in no uncertain terms—to highlight the value that we attach to those who work in residential homes. The people who work in homes, such as those managed by Cornwall Care, do a hard and at times difficult job, very often in circumstances in which they do not feel as appreciated as they might. We appreciate them; they are engaged in a very important task. We ask of them to care for those who are older and vulnerable.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the staff of our residential and other homes feel that they have access to not only high-quality training but, as individuals and through their unions and associations of staff and workers, development of policy.

Mr. Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: No.
The staff have a wisdom through day-to-day contact with senior citizens from which we could all benefit.
I very much look forward to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne on this subject. She clearly displays a knowledge of the contribution of her constituents who are not only in


receipt of care but responsible for giving it on a day-to-day basis. Her voice will be particularly welcome in that regard. Her academic discipline in social studies will obviously be of enormous value to the House and her constituents in such an important area of social policy.
We are concerned that, throughout the country, there should be a system of care for the elderly that is buttressed by a framework that provides good quality care not simply for those who have the ability to buy it but for those who need it. That is crucial to our vision of that care.
In due course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce how we propose to fulfil our commitment on the funding of long-term care for the elderly. In the meantime, we shall continue to promote high-quality provision, ensure fair access to it and offer opportunity and choice to all.

Salisbury Bypass

1 pm

Mr. Robert Key: It is a great pleasure to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), to her new position. I wish her well. I am sure that she will enjoy her new role, and I know that she will discover that it is a controversial job.
My contribution is not intended to be controversial. Indeed, it will be completely non-controversial and non-confrontational as long as I get the answers that I need. First, please may we have a decision on the Salisbury bypass, and please can the answer be yes?
As I pointed out in a letter to the Minister's colleague, Baroness Hayman, we have just been through a general election in which I was the only candidate in Salisbury in favour of the bypass. In fact, I have favoured it for about 30 years for the city in which I grew up—long before I became the local Member of Parliament. The Labour party had a sensible attitude about the bypass and said that it should be subject to a review. Its candidate said that he was not opposed to a Salisbury bypass; indeed, he said that he rather favoured a ring road of some sort. Of course, my principal opponent, the Liberal Democrat, was opposed to the bypass. There was a shift in the Green vote, which went up from 609 to 623. That was a small increase despite the fact that every possible opportunity was taken during the election campaign to turn the ballot into a bypass referendum. I rejected that attempt, but I know that some people thought that we had such a referendum, and I know that a lot of views were swayed in my favour on that basis.
Salisbury is a mediaeval city and its transport problems are not soley connected with trunk routes. In fact, there are seven radial routes into and out of the city, but the bypass is a free-standing proposal. That is what makes it different from many other proposals that are connected to trunk road schemes or even trans-European networks. The bypass proposal is probably the most free standing of those considered by the old Department of Transport.
I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to reconsider the evidence of the public inquiry. That does not mean that I and all those in favour of the bypass have not taken it seriously. I have discovered, however, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially for the people who have not lived with the problem for as many years as I have.
I am aware that a lot has happened since the inquiry closed. For example, the bypass has been considered by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment and the royal commission on environmental pollution. Planning policy guidance notes have been issued, as well as a sustainable development strategy. We have also had the great transport debate. Many other important changes have taken place, some technical and some political, including the general election, in which transport was, quite rightly, an issue.
I know that Ministers must and will take all those findings into account. They will listen to all the individuals who have expressed an interest—including the lobbying groups and the environmental campaigners—and then they will make their decision. Today, I want to


ensure that the Minister is aware that the decision on the bypass should be taken according to a broad view of the problem.
There are lessons to be learnt from what we have been through in Salisbury. First, that bypass is a case study of poor public sector decision making. The same could be said of the private sector if that bypass had happened to be a private sector proposal. That, however, is the subject for another debate.
I have been aware of the problem not just as a long-standing resident—I have lived there on and off since 1947—but as the local Member of Parliament and as a Minister at both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport.
It is true that the previous Government made a number of improvements to the system according to which we decide on the transport infrastructure, particularly roads, with the introduction of round-table conferences and changes to the procedures governing public inquiries, but we did not go nearly far enough. I hope that the new Government will have a radical look at the way in which we reach solutions on the transport infrastructure, because it is not just about roads.
I welcome the merger of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. That will make life much easier and more sensible, because it will remove the destructive rivalry that previously existed, which did none of us any good. If we can concentrate instead on the enormous wealth of talent and expertise at professional and civil service level in those former Departments, we shall be able to contribute significantly to an improved transport system.
The second lesson that I draw from the Salisbury bypass fiasco is that it is quite wrong to make a judgment solely on the ground of flora and fauna. I am not belittling for one moment the arguments of those who have quite rightly put forward the scientific arguments in favour of retaining the environment as it is without interference. Indeed, they have a duty to do so. I have, however, seen remarkable examples of translocation of flora and fauna in connection with various modes of transport including roads, railways, bridges and docks. That means that a sensible approach can be adopted, unless something is so utterly unique that it must not be moved even a few feet.
I want to ensure that the debate on the Salisbury bypass is put in a wider context, because any Government must ensure that that debate is considered in the context of the real world of people. It must be judged according to the quality of life of those who live in Salisbury and its surrounding villages. After all, we are talking about their inheritance, because their forefathers built their communities and shaped the valleys and fields. We are talking about people's employment and their entitlement to the quiet enjoyment of their city and countryside and their local leisure activities.
In the past year or more, we have heard a deafening roar from the green lobby about the Salisbury bypass. Some of its comments have been very silly indeed. I was always brought up to believe that one should not believe what one reads in the papers. Some of the choicest comments about the bypass have been published in some

of the flashiest broadsheets. For example, I have read nonsense such as:
Labour will halt the controversial Salisbury bypass, which will ruin one of the best-loved views in Britain, if it wins the general election.
That was reported under a headline which ran:
Immortalised by Constable, threatened by the Tories … saved by Meacher?
I have read a number of choice comments that are simply not true. For example, it has been claimed that the bypass would destroy
the last open view of Salisbury Cathedral across the water meadows.
What tripe. It has been claimed that it will
seriously damage the water meadows".
In fact, the main water meadows are scarcely touched by the scheme. It has also been claimed that the bypass will
do little to ease congestion in Salisbury as only 6 per cent. of the vehicles entering the city are through-traffic.
It is extraordinary that anyone should have worked out such figures. All manner of claims have been made. Poor old Constable, he seems to have a lot to answer for.
Some rather more seriously damaging material has also been published by the Countryside Commission, which should know better. I hope that the Minister will always ensure that the information that she is given is high quality and concentrates on scientific or landscape considerations, rather than on sheer emotion.
The Countryside Commission recently published an expensive brochure full of colour photographs. Of the seven photographs of the area of the bypass, four are looking in the wrong direction. Those areas have nothing to do with the bypass. Of the four Constable paintings reproduced in that brochure, not one is anywhere near the bypass or represents any part of the countryside through which that bypass would go. That brochure does not do the standing of the Countryside Commission any good. People must be part of the decision making.
We cannot ignore the built environment. Ministers have to consider not only the countryside heritage, but the built heritage. A main reason for building the Salisbury bypass is to give the city of Salisbury back to the people for whom it was designed. It is a unique mediaeval cathedral city; it was designed in a piece with a chequered pattern of shops and dwelling houses around its heart. It was designed for people and we want it to return to them. The built environment is part of the reason for the bypass, which will take traffic further away. I have seen a lot of press gossip saying that the scheme is dreadful because it puts a motorway close to the cathedral. The reverse is true, but when has the truth mattered when debating environmental arguments?
The built environment and heritage are crucial. Salisbury is at the centre of seven radial routes. We want to ensure that Salisbury is given back to the people and not swamped, either by local people using the roads or by through traffic that does not want to be there. We should make a judgment on all the environmental issues, not just the green issues.
Another lesson to he learnt is that delay is bad for people; it is bad for their quality of life and for their jobs. It is even bad for the very policies about which the anti-roads lobby claims to care. I am president of the Cycling Opportunities Group for Salisbury—COGS—and


last Saturday we had a raffle in the marketplace; we had a day of celebrating cycling and cycling policy in the district. The irony is that the Salisbury transport strategy—including county council transport policies and programmes that will do so much to introduce cycle routes around Salisbury—is on ice because of the bypass decision. That is folly.
There is something else special about the Salisbury bypass. It is part of a design, build, finance and operate—DBFO—scheme called the Wessex link, which involves more than simply Salisbury. It is sensible and strategic to consider such matters in one go rather than to tackle them in a piecemeal fashion. There are two groups in the scheme: the A36 scheme, which is the Salisbury bypass, and the Heytesbury to Codford improvement. There are also the A303 schemes—Stockton Wood to Wylye, Mere to Chicklade, which includes the Chicklade bypass, the Ilminster bypass and the Sparkford bypass in the west country. Those schemes are all linked to the decision.
I must also mention the A303 where it passes Stonehenge and the welcome announcement by English Heritage that it wants on-line dualling past the stones, which is what the Department of Transport wanted in the first place and what local people certainly want. Local people might be reconciled to a tunnel if we could find the money for it. I hope that that will not lead to open warfare with the National Trust, but that is a subject for another occasion.
While we wait for the decision, we have a rough time locally. The Brunel link bridge, linking a major industrial estate out of the city centre to the bypass, should have been built 30 years ago or more. When Salisbury rural district council, as it then was, built the industrial estate, it promised the traders and industrialists moving on to it that the bridge was included as part of the deal. They have been scrapping ever since. The Netherhampton road roundabout on the proposed bypass has been put in at the request of Wiltshire county council and would be paid for by the council—that is a measure of its good endeavours.
While we wait for the decision—and my goodness, how we have waited—there is traffic chaos in central Salisbury. Let us consider the situation. There is a mediaeval city; there is a row about a car stack; a multi-storey car park is cancelled; another car park is closed while it is being refurbished; while that is happening, the marketplace is dug up and half the parking spaces are cancelled—a matter over which the traders are taking legal action—parking charges are doubled to compensate for the lack of parking spaces; the area is pedestrianised and the traffic flows in the city centre are changed without proper consultation; a multi-million pound park-and-ride scheme is embarked on without any consultation with the biggest employers in the town; an investigation is conducted into the possibility of introducing into the middle of the mediaeval city trams that will run into Cathedral close.
I am delighted to assure the Minister that neither of us is responsible for that chaos. The Liberal Democrats have presided over that chaos, which has been pathetic and appallingly sad for the ancient city of Salisbury, its modern people and traders. The Minister and I both want to help and I know that she will leave no stone unturned in her attempt to resolve this terrible mess. The best thing that she could do would be to give us a decision on the Salisbury bypass, because so much flows from that.
I wish to ask the Minister a question on a practical point—I do not expect an answer now, but I ask her to consider it. One reason why so many people who are

reconciled to the need for a bypass are still anxious about it is the height of the embankment across East Harnham meadows, which is up to 7 m—more than 20 ft. Part of the reason for that is gradient engineering—the road goes down into a valley and up the other side. Another reason involves the height needed to plant trees to screen the road.
The height may also be necessary to ensure clearance across the waterways, although I am not sure who will use them. There have been incidents of canoeists trying to use them, but canoes do not have big clearance problems. The meadows are not put to a lot of use and there is no commercial boat traffic. There is an access problem for farm and National Rivers Authority vehicles travelling along the sides of the road. There is a case for trying to lower the road by several metres; that may be possible even if it means that the road has to undulate slightly over the main river channel. That would help the residents of Bridford, who would not feel so cut off from the city of Salisbury up the river.
There is no ducking or dodging the problem of where the bypass would cross the river. In engineering terms, there is no doubt that it could run through a submerged tunnel, possibly a deep-bore tunnel, but that is not very practical. The one thing that is certain is that if the bypass is not built, traffic congestion—involving both through and local traffic—will become worse. There are various things that we can do. The Minister and I know that we could price people off the road in various ways. But a public transport network, even in Salisbury and its surrounding villages, would do no more than chip away at the edges of the problem in Salisbury—as the inspector who undertook the inquiry acknowledged in his report.
I welcome the Government's new approach to an integrated transport strategy. I am looking forward to hearing what that means in detail. I know that we shall have to wait until next spring for that. We must ensure that an integrated transport policy does not mean simply cancelling bypasses or simply cancelling roads; I am sure that it will not.
Public perception matters more than anything else. Having tackled and lived with the problems that the Minister now confronts on a daily basis, I know that ultimately our attitude to transport will change when individual attitudes change and people ask themselves whether their journey is really necessary. The Department's engineers and policy makers will be able to tell the Minister about all sorts of tricks of the trade, but public perception is important.
The bypass proposal has been around in one form or another for 60 years. The present scheme was first proposed 15 years ago and was first taken to public consultation nine years ago. We then had the longest and most expensive public inquiry into a road. There was more consultation last year and even more consultation this year. I hope very much that we shall not have to wait much longer for a decision. Any decision would be welcome. A "yes" decision would have us cheering the Minister to the rafters.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. I regret


that there are so few hon. Members in the Chamber. We have been given an object lesson in a Member of Parliament's primary responsibility: the advocacy of his or her constituents' interests, and of constituency interests.
The hon. Gentleman's own advocacy in respect of the Salisbury bypass is, as he has already said, well known and I assure him that I have listened carefully to his speech and taken due note of the points that he made. I am sure that he will agree that this is a particularly sensitive scheme, which has attracted considerable opposition, but which also has its supporters. As he also pointed out, it falls to the new Government to decide whether the bypass should be given the go-ahead.
Following the 1993–94 public inquiry, we are still in the statutory decision-making phase of the proposed bypass scheme. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the scheme, as Ministers have yet to take a final decision; nor, I regret to say, can I indicate when a final decision might be announced. It might, however, help the House to understand why this case has taken so long without a decision being reached if I explain the steps that have already been taken.
It is true that the proposals for the bypass have been at the planning stage for a very long time. The proposed bypass entered the trunk road programme in 1984 and there followed feasibility studies to identify possible route options. As a former Roads Minister, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the prime importance of correct route selection if resultant harm to the natural and built environment—an issue which he touched on to great effect—is to be kept to a minimum. The outcome of the feasibility studies identified three possible routes and those were made the subject of a public consultation exercise held in 1988. The result of that consultation was strong public support for a route crossing the River Avon flood plain to the south of the city. In the light of that preference, the preferred route for a southern bypass was announced in 1989. Further design work for that route was then carried out, together with a full environmental impact assessment. The draft statutory orders for the bypass and an environmental statement assessing its impact were first published in 1991.
Objections to the published draft orders triggered the convening of a public inquiry, which lasted for a year, from April 1993 to April 1994. It was an exhaustive inquiry, which explored all aspects of the bypass proposals, including the need for the scheme and its impact on the environment. Twenty-four alternative proposals to the published route were considered, as well as many alternative junction arrangements.
The independent inspector, Sir Peter Buchanan, made his report on the inquiry to the then Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport in September 1995. Given the length of the inquiry, it is understandable that it should have taken him more than 12 months to write the report. Some 300 sources objected to the bypass, 20 of which were subsequently withdrawn; there were 280 pro forma objections and four petitions of objection; and some 40 sources registered support. Having weighed all the evidence put before him at the public inquiry, the inspector came to these overall conclusions: that there was a need for the A36 between the terminal points of the proposed bypass to be upgraded to modern trunk road standards; that

there was a need to remove A36 through traffic from Salisbury and from the Wylye valley villages to the north-west of the city; and that, despite its adverse impacts, the published route for the bypass—with certain modifications—would provide the best solution.
Having heard the arguments of the Department of Transport justifying the published bypass proposals, the expressions of support for the bypass, and the arguments put forward by objectors, the inspector had come down in favour of giving the go-ahead to the bypass. However, the inspector could not take into consideration developments after the public inquiry had closed and the further representations about the scheme that were subsequently received. Those had to be taken into consideration by the then Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport, alongside the inspector's report.
Three significant post-inquiry developments occurred in the case of the Salisbury bypass. First, in December 1994, the report "Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic" by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment was published. In its response to that report, the then Government undertook that the effects of generated traffic would be considered in connection with all schemes at the planning stage, which included the Salisbury bypass. The economic benefits of the scheme were reassessed, taking into account new technical guidance on induced traffic issued by the Department. The report on that assessment was received in September 1996.
Secondly, in September 1995, English Nature notified its intention to designate East Harnham meadows as a site of special scientific interest. The site's designation was confirmed in February 1996. If the Salisbury bypass were to be built as proposed, it would mean taking just over one hectare of land from the south-eastern edge of the 17 hectare site. The hon. Gentleman referred to the parliamentary brief published today by the World Wide Fund for Nature, which claims that four hectares would be taken. I asked my officials, who repeated that they believe that claim to be inaccurate and that only one hectare would need to be taken. Although at the time of the inquiry the site had not been designated as an SSSI, the high ecological value of East Harnham meadows was acknowledged in the environmental statement and considered by the inspector in reaching his conclusions. Nevertheless, the subsequent notification of the site was a material change that had to be taken into account.
Thirdly, at the time of the inquiry, the intention to notify the River Avon system as an SSSI was known. Subsequently, however, English Nature, through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, advised the Secretary of State for the Environment that, in its opinion, parts of the River Avon and its tributaries qualified for consideration as a possible special area of conservation under the European Community habitats directive.
Having considered the inspector's report, the developments to which I have just referred and other post-inquiry developments and representations, the then Secretaries of State announced at the end of last October their views on the bypass. Those were set out in detail in an interim letter sent to all interested parties. At the same time, the inspector's report and the induced traffic assessment report were published.
Although they were minded to confirm the orders authorising construction of the bypass, before taking a final decision, the Secretaries of State instructed the


Highways Agency, in consultation with English Nature, to review the bypass route across the River Avon flood plain and investigate mitigation of its possible impact on the proposed River Avon special area of conservation. The main reason for that review was to see whether it would be possible to avoid the newly designated East Harnham meadows SSSI. The agency was also instructed to review, in consultation with the Countryside Commission, mitigation of the overall landscape impact of the bypass on the sensitive area south of Salisbury. The agency was given four months to report on those matters.
The Secretaries of State also afforded interested parties an opportunity to make further representations on two issues: the economic benefits of the scheme in the light of the report on the effects of induced traffic; and the adoption, as recommended by the inspector, of a modification to the bypass route to take it further away from housing on the southern outskirts of Salisbury. The Highways Agency review report, including reports to the agency by English Nature and the Countryside Commission, was published on 21 March. It identified two alternative route options for the bypass across the River Avon flood plain that avoided the need to take any land from the East Harnham meadows SSSI. Interested parties were invited to comment on the review report by 2 May.
We have now received more than 3,000 representations about the bypass since last October's announcement. Around 90 per cent. have arisen as a result of organised campaigns for or against the bypass. The remainder have addressed the specific issues on which interested parties were invited to comment, including the Highways Agency review report. No decision on the bypass will be taken until the comments on the agency's report and other representations received have been considered by Ministers. At the same time, we shall want to look at the bypass proposals in the context of our strategic review of the trunk road programme. We expect to make an announcement about that review shortly.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the height of a particular embankment and he had the great courtesy to contact my officials about the matter yesterday, thereby giving them and me the opportunity to respond. It appears that the height is not necessary to facilitate farm vehicles underneath the bridges crossing the three main waterways. The bypass would come down off high ground to the west of the flood plain. After crossing, it must go over an elevated junction at Petersfinger to the east. The need to avoid sharp changes in gradient and to give adequate clearance of the bridges in the event of flooding dictates the embankment height—so I am informed by officials.
I appreciate that the continuing uncertainty about the bypass is frustrating, but I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that the bypass proposal is particularly sensitive. We must consider all aspects—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Whitley Park, Huddersfield

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome you to your new position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first speech that I have made in the new Parliament and therefore it is the first opportunity for me to congratulate you and wish you well. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and wish her well. She is certainly earning her money, because this is the second debate to which she has had to reply today.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise concerns about recent events at Whitley park. What has happened there shows the need urgently and significantly to strengthen existing environmental protection measures.
My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that the Wakefield constituency was radically changed at the general election and now includes the two Kirklees wards of Kirkburton and Denby Dale, which were previously within the Dewsbury constituency. Whitley park is situated within the Kirkburton ward, between Huddersfield and Wakefield, to the west of the village of Grange Moor and to the north east of the village of Lepton. It is an area of privately owned land that contains woodland, copses and open fields. During my teens, I had a friend who lived on a farm in Grange Moor and we regularly roamed around the Whitley park area. I therefore share the very high regard of local people for its value as an outstanding local beauty spot. I also share the concern about the recent destruction of several copses within the park and understand the anger and outrage that have united local people in the Lepton and Grange Moor areas.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the land concerned is owned by a company called Elliotts Bricks Ltd. It is based in Lepton and is involved in the production of facing and engineering bricks. I understand that, over recent years, it has bought a considerable amount of the local green belt with the longer-term intention of mining clay through opencast methods.
In the short time that I have represented the Lepton area, I have received an almost constant stream of complaints about the company's activities, most recently concerning the burning of wool sludge. I gather that these representations are nothing out of the ordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has constituents in nearby Kirkheaton who have raised concerns about the company. My hon. Friend was quoted in the Huddersfield Examiner on 3 April as saying:
Elliotts have a long history of activities which local people have objected to very strongly.
As my hon. Friend will recall, two years ago local communities took great exception to Elliotts stripping natural vegetation on four acres of land that it owned at Lepton common. I understand that, in doing so, it had destroyed some active badger setts. I want briefly to quote press coverage at the time. On 2 June 1995, the Huddersfield District Chronicle reported that a wildlife haven had been destroyed and said:
Bulldozers have torn through a wildlife oasis that has been on maps for more than 1,000 years.
Outraged villagers watched helplessly as bulldozers ploughed into Lepton Common … on Sunday morning. Vegetation left in their wake was torched.


Four-acres of gorse bushes—home to badgers, a vixen and four cubs, rabbits and numerous birds—was destroyed.
On Saturday 10 June, the Huddersfield Examiner talked about
The rape of Lepton Common".
The most recent damage caused by Elliotts occurred at Whitley park over the Easter period, against a background of strenuous protests by concerned local residents. I want to pay particular tribute to those involved for drawing attention to what was happening and for their vigorous attempts to stop it. In particular, I want to mention the efforts of a local parish councillor, Roy Dobson, whose vigilance led to the company's intentions being anticipated early on the morning of Easter Tuesday, 1 April. Mr. Dobson, who lives nearby, spotted a bulldozer in the park and alerted local residents, who arrived on the scene as the driver started ripping up one of the copses within the park. Mr. Dobson was supported by other local residents, including Mr. Robert Gunn, Mr. Mike Greethan and local Kirklees councillors, Peter Sykes, Eileen Blunt and Mel Munday—representing, incidentally, all three main political parties on the local authority.
After the first copse had been partially cleared of vegetation, the driver was persuaded to stop to allow an investigation of the claim that there were active badger setts in the area being cleared. I understand that an agreement was reached for the local residents and the company separately to consult two different badger experts prior to any resumption of clearance work. In addition to myself, the head of planning services for Kirklees council, Mr. Keith Faragher, paid an urgent visit to the site to consider any steps that the local authority might be able to take. I pay tribute to his willingness to turn out over a bank holiday weekend. The fact that he found himself effectively powerless to prevent the destruction is a key issue, to which I shall come later.
After the work was halted, local residents were given to understand that they would meet representatives of Elliotts the following day to discuss evidence of badger activity, but the company cancelled the meeting on the ground that its experts had not had the opportunity to visit the site. Residents were then advised that bulldozing would be resumed on the Thursday afternoon of that week. The local residents attempted to stand in front of the bulldozers and to open their doors, but it was to no avail—within three hours, three circular copses, well-loved features of the Whitley park estate for at least 100 years, had been destroyed. The company set the freshly dug peat mounds on fire, with burning hay bales tossed on to the remaining vegetation.
Although I understand that there is no positive proof of active badger setts in the immediate vicinity, the copses involved—primarily populated by rhododendrons—provided cover for a variety of birds and other wildlife. The indiscriminate destruction both removed that habitat and killed some of its resident wildlife, in particular rabbits.
I realise that there are rules about using photographs in debates, but I want to pass to my hon. Friend the Minister some photographs showing before-and-after scenes of the site. They illustrate, in a far more realistic way than I can, what really happened. I hope that she will look at those photographs in detail.
The owners of the land eventually made a statement to the local press suggesting that their actions formed part of a "comprehensive whole farm plan" based on advice that the rhododendrons should be cleared. I am aware that such plants sometimes require control, in particular where there are grazing animals, but there can be no justification for the indiscriminate destruction at Whitley park over the Easter period. I look to the new Government to ensure that such irresponsible actions by landowners are not permitted in law in future.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend's Department has announced a review of existing hedgerow protection, especially as I understand that the new hedgerow regulations of 1 June have made no difference to existing powers to restrain such actions. Will the Minister look at the weakness of existing legislation as evidenced in this case? I would welcome her comments on the apparent inconsistencies in whether vegetation within a copse where trees are subject to a tree preservation order is protected in law.
In a ruling some years ago, Lord Denning determined that the site of a wood—undergrowth, seedlings, plants, and so on—is protected, not just individual trees. The local authority, however, has advised me that, although the trees within the copses concerned have been protected by a tree preservation order since 1950, because they are defined as group G2 containing beech and sycamore, reference to the definition of a tree in woodland as per Lord Denning's decision is not relevant. It also said that the plant material destroyed was not trees but mainly rhododendrons, which clearly has a bearing on any approach that might be taken to protect such copses.
I recognise that, despite their attractiveness, especially at this time of year, rhododendrons are regarded by some as an invasive weed. I understand the need to exercise control, particularly if their growth suppresses natural tree regeneration, but such control should be exercised by on-going and sensitive removal of the vegetation concerned, not by what the local parish council chairman described as "environmental vandalism". Even if the case for removing such vegetation is accepted, there must be controls to prevent the indiscriminate bulldozing witnessed at Whitley park, and those controls appear to be lacking.
I should also welcome the Minister's thoughts on the relevance of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to what has happened at Whitley park. That legislation makes it an offence intentionally to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while it is in use or being built. Given that the destruction took place in early April, when it was presumably known that birds were likely to be nesting within the sites in question—I have pictures that show that nests were destroyed—is the Minister satisfied that the Act has sufficient powers to protect wildlife in such circumstances and that the enforcement of those powers is sufficiently understood by those responsible?
The police were involved at Whitley park. They were called by Elliotts to ensure public safety and public order, but I strongly suspect that the officers concerned were not aware of their possible role in enforcing the 1981 legislation in such cases.
The Minister will accept fully the reasons for the public outcry over what happened recently at Whitley park. Local people do not want to prevent proper management


of the land in question, if it is done in an environmentally responsible way. That has not been the case, however, and the wanton destruction witnessed at Easter and two years earlier is unacceptable.
My constituents feel that, if such action is not illegal, environmental protection laws leave a great deal to be desired. I appreciate that the problem I have described is complex, but I hope that the Minister can offer some assurances that important lessons will be learned from those events and that action will be taken to prevent a repetition.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). I represented the area that he describes and now represents when I was elected to the House. It is a beautiful part of the country which moves from constituency to constituency. The Leader of the House represented it for three elections. We have therefore all shared that part of the constituency and are familiar with the company which often acts ruthlessly and tends to destroy the environment. A few years ago in Kirkheaton, there was a large campaign to stop mining—the company wanted to take out a whole hillside and destroy the natural environment.
I am a great exponent in the House of Britain's business success and am impressed by the work of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce on behalf of tomorrow's companies. Although hon. Members want to promote tomorrow's companies, Elliotts Bricks is one of yesterday's companies, with which it is difficult to have a dialogue. The rules of tomorrow's companies include looking after stakeholders, employees, shareholders, the supply chain, customers and, most of all, the community in which the business sits. I appeal to that company, which refuses to speak to local Members of Parliament, local authorities or local communities, to open up a dialogue.
It cannot be right for companies to treat the English countryside as though they own it lock, stock and barrel. The environment is simply in trust for a short time to those who own it. It is not owned in the full sense of ownership; it is only on loan, whatever our relationship with it. I wish to share with the House my dismay at the destruction that has taken place around that site by a company that does not feel bound by the normal laws of human behaviour. If our laws cannot prevent the destruction of what I consider to be historic green belt land, there must be something wrong with the law. I hope that, under the new Labour Government, we shall see real changes in terms of protecting the English countryside through green belt legislation and other protective measures, because it is a resource for us all to share.
The company in question is in the minority. Most companies, landowners and farmers preserve our countryside and heritage, but a few seem to go about their business ruthlessly and suffer no penalties. We must have rules, regulations and legislation that get the balance right and deter people from doing what is only too often witnessed when a ruthless operator goes in with heavy machinery. These days, the most ghastly earth-moving equipment can do enormous damage in a short time. The owners then sit back and say, "Fine us. What are the worst consequences?" That is not the way to protect our environment and heritage.
I know that the Minister has a broad-ranging brief and that some hon. Members will urge all sorts of environmental changes, including the right to ramble, but I hope that this matter will be taken extremely seriously.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on securing time to draw the House's attention to a recent incident in his constituency which has raised much local concern. I thank him for his good wishes and his observation that I am earning my money. I hope that somebody somewhere has noticed that. I am grateful for this opportunity to respond to his points.
The specific action that we are discussing is the clearance of rhododendron bushes from part of Whitley park, which is owned by Elliotts Bricks. I recognise and sympathise greatly with the concerns of local people who walk the paths around Whitley park and have had to stand by and watch that happen. The before-and-after photographs that were given to me today illustrate starkly what happened during this bank holiday. Whether or not it was environmentally right to clear the rhododendron bushes, the way in which the company went about it clearly increased the sense of outrage and alienated the company from local communities.
From what my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, this case seems to be part of an on-going pattern of behaviour by that company. It is extremely regrettable that it feels that it can behave in that way and continue to do so over a number of years. If a company takes such a confrontational attitude to what it likes to call land management, but for which others might have a different name, it is not surprising that its behaviour should draw crowds and cause trouble, as occurred at Whitley park at Easter. At the least, it is unwise and regrettable that the company decided to behave in such a way.
As my hon. Friend said, we are told that the landowners of Whitley park are carrying out the work as part of
a comprehensive whole farm plan".
The name derives from an approach to land management that is supported by the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group which, as many hon. Members will know, provides valuable conservation advice to landowners, as it did to Elliotts Bricks on this occasion. It is no good, however, for a company to claim that it has a comprehensive whole farm plan if it decides to behave in such a confrontational manner.
Comprehensive whole farm plans exist, and advice was given to the company, but I do not endorse the way in which it subsequently went about its work or the provocative and confrontational way in which it set out to achieve its aims. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, rhododendrons are regarded as an invasive weed that may suppress natural tree regeneration. Rhododendron control is acceptable, but not in the way that Elliotts Bricks went about it.
My hon. Friend raised a number of questions, which I shall try to answer. He mentioned hedgerows regulations which came into force on 1 June. He will know that we had some serious problems with the approach to hedgerows taken by the previous


Government. Although the regulations are an important first step in the protection of hedgerows, we have made it clear that we consider that they are too weak. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced an immediate review of the regulations, to consider how they might be strengthened.
Given that the focus of the regulations is on hedgerows and not on other forms of vegetation or boundaries, I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend comfort that the review will yield changes to prevent a recurrence of the events at Whitley park, but it shows the Government's commitment to stronger environmental protection.
My hon. Friend referred to a ruling by Lord Denning on the scope of tree preservation orders. We are aware of one case in the 1970s where Lord Denning considered the question of what exactly in a woodland is protected by a tree preservation order. I am afraid that Lord Denning's ruling does not provide comfort for my hon. Friend—indeed, precisely the opposite. It recognised that protection extends only to trees in a wood, and went on to suggest that many saplings should not be regarded as trees, because, in a woodland, only trees of more than 7 or 8 in in diameter should be protected. That restrictive view was not applied by the courts in a subsequent case, but the courts have clearly established that tree preservation orders control the removal of trees only.
The local authority's tree preservation order in this case does not extend to all the trees in the wood, but only to certain groups of trees. This category is used for trees whose overall impact and quality merit protection. The tree preservation order must show the boundary of the group and must specify the number of trees included in it. The order is precise, and only specific trees are subject to its requirements. It does not apply to any trees or bushes that happen to be in the area shown in the plan that forms part of the order.
Although rhododendrons were removed from the area delineated in the tree preservation order, my understanding is that no work had been undertaken on the protected trees, so the requirements of the order were not contravened. I shall, however, ensure that when considering any future changes to tree preservation legislation, we take full account of the events at Whitley park.
My hon. Friend invited my views on the relevance of the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to what happened at Whitley park. As he observed, section 1 of the 1981 Act makes it an offence intentionally to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird, while the nest is in use or being built. For the species of bird that are specifically protected under the 1981 Act by their listing in schedule 1, it is an offence intentionally to disturb the birds while they are building a nest or while the nests contain eggs or young.

Mr. Sheerman: Is that list constantly updated? We hear from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Protection of

Birds that birds that, only a few years ago, were considered a common species, such as the tree sparrow, are now an endangered species.

Angela Eagle: The health or otherwise of many bird species is changing constantly, so I shall check the facts and write to my hon. Friend on the matter. It would not be helpful if there were no updating mechanism.
My Department, in co-operation with the police, has raised the profile of wildlife crime and will continue to do so. Every police force in England now has a wildlife liaison officer who specialises in dealing with that activity. To aid those officers and others who deal with wildlife crime, the Department recently published a book, "Wildlife crime—a guide to law enforcement in the conservation and protection of wildlife in the United Kingdom". It is a practical guide to those involved in investigating offences under wildlife legislation.
We shall continue to keep the situation under review and ensure that the experience at Whitley park informs future consideration of the matter. My hon. Friends will realise that to change legislation requires slots in an already tight legislative timetable for the new Government. They may rest assured that my Department will continue to press for changes in legislation in these areas to be given a reasonable place in the queue over the five-year term of this Parliament.
I understand that one of the concerns underlying recent events at Whitley park arises from anxiety about the owners' future intentions towards the site, especially proposals for the opencasting of clay. The issue is not merely the company's confrontational and provocative attitude and its unwillingness to enter into a dialogue with local communities, but the communities' concerns about its future intentions with respect to opencasting which, as we all know, can cause terrible environmental damage if it is not properly regulated.
At the public inquiry, Elliotts Bricks argued for policies to be included in the draft Kirklees unitary development plan to allow brick earth mineral development at Whitley park. The inspector's report of that inquiry and his conclusions are awaited. It is expected that they will be presented to my Department in the autumn.
In the meantime, there are a number of old minerals planning permissions that apply to the Whitley park site, and Elliotts Bricks has applied to Kirklees council to resume clay extraction from five or so sites in the general area. All old mineral permissions must be reviewed by the mineral planning authority under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995. Clearly, the process has been set in hand by Kirklees council.
I understand that the council has refused to put a number of the Elliotts Bricks sites on its list of sites to be reviewed because it has doubts about the validity of the applications. The company has appealed to the Secretary of State against three of those decisions relating to the Houses Hill, Spa Green Quarry and Temple Grange Moor sites. The appeals are very recent and have been received in the Department only in the past few weeks.
The determination of the appeal will be made by one of my Department's inspectors and will be factually based on whether a relevant planning permission exists or not. The judgment is simply: is there an old permission to mine minerals from the site, or not?
When an appeal is lodged with the Department, Ministers have a legal responsibility to all parties involved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate, therefore, that I cannot comment further on the particular circumstances of those cases. However, my information is that none of the applications and appeals relates directly to those parts of the park from which the rhododendrons were cleared.
The events at Whitley park and the public reaction to them demonstrate the importance that we all attach to our local environment. My hon. Friend has highlighted the way in which mechanisms that are intended to preserve and enhance the quality of the local environment have proved inadequate in the circumstances of this particular case.
The announcement of the immediate review of the hedgerows regulations demonstrates the Government's commitment to strong environmental protection. We will keep relevant legislation under review, and I can assure my hon. Friend that, in considering any future changes, we will take account of what happened at Whitley park. I appeal to companies to play their part by not behaving in such a provocative and confrontational way. Instead, I hope that they will seek to build an open and constructive relationship and dialogue with their local communities.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Local Government

Mr. Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government have to extend democratic local government in Northern Ireland and reduce the number of quangos. [1376]

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to extend the powers of district councils; and if she will make a statement. [1383]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): The multi-party talks, which resumed on 3 June, are meant to achieve new local democratic arrangements for Northern Ireland as part of a wider political settlement. We have no plans to extend the powers of district councils in Northern Ireland, but Ministers will be visiting district councils in the coming months to listen to their views. I intend to consult widely with local interests in Northern Ireland during our current review of spending priorities, for example. The Government are reviewing quangos, and we shall examine the Northern Ireland situation in that context.

Mr. Thompson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. We have listened to that answer for 25 years. Is there really any need to wait for some political settlement in Northern Ireland before we return to proper local government in the Province?

Mr. Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I remind the House that he and I were members of local authorities. I am sure that he agrees that local government is a cornerstone of good local democracy and of democracy generally. I cannot answer for the past 25 years, but if the talks that are currently occurring in Belfast result in a proper, balanced settlement and arrangements, I hope that we will not have to wait too long to see a proper system of local government that is accountable to all and accepted on both sides. We must understand that that outcome depends on the success or otherwise of those very important talks.

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I wish him and the rest of the Northern Ireland team well in their endeavours to bring peace to Northern Ireland. On the efforts to improve local government facilities and responsibilities, will my hon. Friend consider the serious issue of arrangements for strategic planning in Northern Ireland when he meets district council representatives? People highlighted that issue for discussion when I was in the Province. I appeal to my hon. Friend to consider favourably any representations made to him regarding planning issues.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes. He has taken a long-standing interest in planning matters both as a Member of Parliament and as a former leader of a local authority. He will know that the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs reported last year

on planning. The Government have agreed to improve the consultative process and to give members of local authorities a more meaningful role in planning. However, I repeat that that can be achieved only in a proper spirit of partnership, which is possible only when there is widespread agreement on both sides of the community about a proper settlement in Northern Ireland.

Fair Employment Legislation

Mr. Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to review legislation relating to fair employment in Northern Ireland. [1377]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The previous Secretary of State asked the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to carry out a review of employment equality, including the effectiveness of the current fair employment legislation. The commission will publish its report shortly and any recommendations made will be given the fullest consideration. The Government greatly appreciate the efforts SACHR has made to produce a comprehensive report which will inform our future thinking in this important area of policy.

Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and welcome him to the Government Front Bench in a very important Department of this Parliament. I am sure that everyone who cares for the people of Northern Ireland will look forward to the publication of the report with intense interest. In particular, those concerned will be interested to find out what penetration there was of prosperity in Northern Ireland in different communities during the period of the ceasefire. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that the fair employment review will attempt to find ways of bringing employment and prosperity to those communities that are at this moment suffering from endemic unemployment problems, whether we are talking of the Shankill road or the Falls road; Caulside in Antrim or the Bogside in Derry?

Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I know that he has shown a close and active interest in this subject; that interest is more than welcome. The more people, including politicians, from the mainland who participate in Northern Ireland affairs, the better it is for us all
I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that his question turns on a complex issue that I expect will be touched upon by the fair employment review. My hon. Friend will be aware that all Government employment agencies have a commitment to target their activities on areas of social need in line with the policy appraisal and fair treatment guidelines.

Mr. Roy Beggs: In welcoming the Secretary of State and her ministerial team to the Northern Ireland Department, may I observe that it is with regret that neither Northern Ireland Members nor Ministers are able to welcome Her Majesty at the garden party in Northern Ireland? I hope that the business managers will take some account of that and ensure that such a clash does not happen in future
We seek to promote fair employment in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister accept that public bodies and the private sector, through the appointment of recruitment


officers and monitoring officers, have gone a long way to ensure fair employment and that appointments are made on merit? Will the Minister examine and publish the cost to the public sector over the past five years of out-of-court settlements following allegations of discrimination?
Will the Minister also—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."]—will the Minister seek to establish within the civil service expert legal advice to ensure that most allegations of discrimination are challenged and that justice is being done? Will he especially monitor the Newry and Mourne health trust—

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions are becoming far too long. I have complained that answers are long but now questions are turning into Adjournment debates.

Mr. Beggs: Finally—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hooray."]—will the Minister monitor the situation in the Newry and Mourne health trust, where only two of the 80 midwives are Protestants?

Mr. Ingram: The conflict between Northern Ireland questions and the garden party is a matter of regret. It is something which will have to be taken on board for the future
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of matters and I do not think that you, Madam Speaker, would allow me to deal with them in detail. Perhaps I may write to him on some of the specific issues he raises and place my answers in the Library—if answers are available. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share with me the view that there is a need for a proper overview of fair employment policy in Northern Ireland so that all sectors of the community benefit from it.

Mr. McGrady: I, too, welcome the Minister to the Government Front Bench
In the context of fair employment, does the Minister accept the principle that fair employment opportunity is as much a matter of geographical location of industry as of individual application? Perhaps he will look into his new portfolio from the point of view that areas of high unemployment, such as my constituency, have not had one inward investment job in the past decade. Some Government Departments have hampered the introduction of such jobs. The planning department, for example, has sat on the report of an inquiry into an industrial site for the past three months even though it had ample opportunity at the public inquiry to make its comments. In that context, fair employment cannot be provided unless jobs are distributed equally

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the distribution of jobs is not only a matter for the best efforts of the Government; it is also determined by those who invest in particular areas. It is for them to decide where to make their investments. I said earlier that the function and underlying purpose of all Government agencies is to target areas of social need and to seek answers to the very points that the hon. Gentleman made. I have asked my officials to draw up a programme for me to visit all areas in Northern Ireland so that I can begin to understand some of the local economic development issues that are involved. That will take longer that many hon. Members may be prepared to wait, but I shall do my best, and as quickly as possible.

Peace Process

Judy Mallaber: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the Northern Ireland peace process. [1378]

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The multi-party negotiations resumed on 3 June. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government are determined to work towards a comprehensive and lasting political settlement that has the broad support of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland
I said recently that we want the talks to move on to consider the substantive political issue of decommissioning illegal weapons within a matter of weeks. I have also said that we want Sinn Fein to join the negotiations, but have made it clear that that can happen only if there is an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire and a clear commitment to democratic principles.

Judy Mallaber: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate her on her excellent start in what we all know is a very difficult job
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the view, shared by many hon. Members, that progress in the talks has been slow and that the credibility of the process will be greatly enhanced if early progress can be made? Will she therefore tell us when she thinks we will enter into full political negotiations?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I think that the talks are in danger of running into the sands and that progress must be made as soon as possible. We are working closely with the Irish Government and the parties to try to see whether we can get the issue of the decommissioning of illegal weapons settled in the next couple of weeks, which would allow us to move on to substantive negotiations in the talks in September. We have also made it clear that, by legislation of the House, the life of the Forum, which runs parallel to the talks, comes to an end in May 1998. That is the time that we are working towards for a settlement and a final vote in a referendum.

Mr. Trimble: I welcome the right hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box and wish her well in the job that is in front of her. I also remind her that when the Prime Minister made his speech in Belfast he also said that he would not allow Sinn Fein to hold a veto over the talks and that he was encouraging or permitting his officials to speak to Sinn Fein purely for the purpose of explaining to them that it was their last chance to join the process, otherwise the process would move on. In a situation where, yesterday, republicans attempted to murder soldiers; where, this morning, republicans murdered a person in Belfast; and where there can be no doubt about the absence of any commitment to peaceful means among republicans, the only coherent thing to do is to go ahead with the process without Sinn Fein. The Government are in danger of losing credibility with the people of Northern Ireland if they keep on talking to republicans against a background of republican violence.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. In answer to his question, I condemn the


violence that has taken place in the past three days. It is appalling wherever it comes from. I do not know whether the origins of the violence are yet clear, but it should be totally condemned regardless of that.
Let me make it clear to the House that the Prime Minister said that we should have clarificatory talks between officials and Sinn Fein. We are not talking to Sinn Fein until there is an unequivocal ceasefire, when— if—that comes, but it is important to understand that these are not parallel negotiations; they are not negotiations in any way at all.
We have had two meetings to clarify our position and that of Sinn Fein. We have no intention of going on indefinitely. I said yesterday that I am minded to have one more meeting in order to determine the two positions, and I believe that yesterday Sinn Fein approached the Northern Ireland Office for another meeting. Therefore, my best answer is that another meeting is likely, but that that will be it.

Mr. Hume: I join the rest of the House in welcoming the Secretary of State and her team. We look forward to working with them on all aspects of our problem. I also welcome and thank the right hon. Lady for the statement that she has just made about the peace process. I can tell the House from my own experience that an historic opportunity now exists to take the gun for ever out of our island politics and I encourage the right hon. Lady to keep on the road that she has clearly declared because the process that will bring that about is and must be a process that threatens no section of our people. Lasting stability and lasting peace must have the loyalty and allegiance of both sections of our people—something which has never existed in Northern Ireland. The opportunity now exists and I thank the right hon. Lady for the efforts that she and her team are making.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words. Perhaps I may return the compliment to him and other Northern Ireland Members. However much we try to facilitate and set the parameters, in the end, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, progress can be made only with the consent, the support and the accommodation of the two communities. Where trust and confidence is built between them, together we have a chance of stopping the violence in Northern Ireland. My thanks go to all the parties in Northern Ireland. Whether it be on decommissioning or on concluding the talks by May 1998, we can put forward suggestions, but accommodation requires the agreement of the different parties from Northern Ireland in the House. The settlement will, in the end, be theirs. We will do all we can, and we wish them well on the path to reaching an accommodation with which we can all live.

Mr. Ancram: I wish the right hon. Lady well, but does she accept that the situation on the ground is very sensitive at the moment, not least because of the recent acts of violence on both sides of the community which must be whole-heartedly condemned? In calling for calm and restraint in the face of what is undoubtedly despicable violence, will she reconfirm clearly that it remains the Government's policy to move forward only on the basis of dialogue and agreement with the parties, not by

imposition, and that she will look to the new Irish Government to show the same sensitivity to the concerns of both parts of the community as she herself must?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those remarks. Let me pick up where he ended. Of course we will represent the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. That is the job that we are here to do. I have listened to his remarks about the Irish Government. They are doing their best in a difficult situation to try to continue the discussion on decommissioning, which would be helpful to move the process forward. I can only agree that progress will be by dialogue and discussion between all the parties. Of course we will not impose an agreement or a settlement. We have never, ever suggested that. We supported the Downing street declaration and the framework document, which makes it absolutely clear—it is the cornerstone of our policy—that consent is crucial to agreement and accommodation in Northern Ireland. It is only with the consent of the different communities that any settlement that will last and can be lived with will work. In that sense, the answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is a categorical yes.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I add my welcome to the Secretary of State in her new responsibilities. It is perhaps a sign of creeping democracy in Northern Ireland that her team includes a Scot and a Welshman. That may augur well for the future. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in her responses to various questions, she used the terms "unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire" and "an unequivocal ceasefire" as if they were interchangeable? Is she aware that the ground rules provide for an unequivocal restoration of the failed and tactical ceasefire of August 1994? That ceasefire proved not only fallible but fraudulent. Are the Government wedded to a restoration of such a ceasefire, or must a new ceasefire be complete in its nature, permanent in its duration and universal in its application?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his question and for his good wishes to me and my team. I wonder what the fourth person is: perhaps he is stateless. On numerous occasions since coming to office, the Government have outlined the need for an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. We have also said that that must be confirmed by words and deeds. Our position has not shifted. I have also said that if and when we achieve a ceasefire it will be judged in the round: we will make a judgment on all the conditions at that point. It is not up to us any more: we have made it clear that the ball is in Sinn Fein's court. If progress is to be achieved to make the talks inclusive, it is up to Sinn Fein to make a move.

Parades

Mr. Stott: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to take steps to address the difficulties in respect of parades in Northern Ireland. [1381]

Mr. Borrow: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to help reduce tensions over parades in Northern Ireland. [1385]

Marjorie Mowlam: We have met a number of residents' groups and parades organisers. There is


absolutely no doubt that none of them wants a repeat of what happened at Drumcree last year. The main purpose of the meetings was to listen to all sides and promote the message that the key to resolving the parade issue is accommodation and negotiation. It is only by accommodation and negotiation locally that we shall progress on this issue to avoid the disastrous situation that we had last year. The Government are committed to implementation of the recommendations in the North report on parades, and will introduce legislation in the autumn to achieve that.

Mr. Stott: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As someone who has been there before, I wish her well in her difficult task. My right hon. Friend may be aware that some Labour Members met the Grand Master of the Orange Lodge in the House of Commons last week. He said that the Orange Order in Portadown had circulated a letter to every resident in the Garvaghy road explaining the nature and origin of the Orange Order match. Will she tell the House whether she believes that the contents of that letter, which explained what the march is about, will go any way towards avoiding the disgraceful and appalling scenes that we saw in Drumcree last year?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The letter to which he referred, which the Orange Order sent to all the residents of the Garvaghy road, was a positive step. It was helpful to outline its position. It is also helpful that the Garvaghy road residents have reciprocated with a letter, because part of the problem is a misunderstanding and lack of information. What the Orange Order has done is a positive step and a positive statement. However, an agreement is no closer after that exchange of letters. We shall, therefore, intensify our efforts and leave no stone unturned to try to avoid a repeat of the events of last year. The only way to avoid violence and the conflict that we saw last year is through discussion and accommodation between the two communities locally. We shall continue to talk to both sides to achieve that, but, in the end, it is in the hands of local people. I am sure that all constitutional politicians in the House will use their power to try to avoid a repeat of those events.

Mr. Borrow: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. In her main reply, she answered any question that I might have asked as a supplementary. I refer in particular to her welcome for the letters from the Orange Order to the residents of Portadown, and her view that those were helpful, and to the fact that she said that further discussions should take place to bring about a satisfactory solution that would avoid the appalling consequences of the march last year.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I simply reiterate the fact that many people, including the Churches, the voluntary sector and the business community, are working in good faith to try to achieve an accommodation. I am sure that in the next three to six weeks everybody will do all they can in Northern Ireland, where the vast majority of the people do not want a repeat of what happened in the Garvaghy road.

Mr. William Ross: Is it not a fact that lawful processions have been stopped only because of the threats of violence,

which had force only because they were backed up by the IRA? Is it not a further fact that, because those threats had such force behind them, the streets were surrendered to the control of the IRA both last year and the year before? What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to regain and maintain control of the streets this year? Despite what she says, the IRA is intent on ensuring that there is confrontation and violence, and it can bring that about.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and repeat that, from our perspective, we shall work with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and, if necessary, the Army, so that the ports and airports are not closed when attempts are made to close them, as happened last year, but, in the end, I do not want to see RUC people caught, as they were at the weekend, when 27 of them were injured. They are often caught in the middle, and we must do all we can to support them
I hope that, in the end, both communities will realise that what we have is a situation of conflicting rights. There is the right to march and parade, which I fully accept, but equally there is a second right—the right to live in freedom, without fear and intimidation. We must reach an accommodation between those conflicting rights in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: I, too, add my voice to the welcome for the Secretary of State and her Ministers. The right hon. Lady will be aware that during and after parades and marches last year, 8,500 plastic bullets were fired. Is she aware of the deep concern about the use of those lethal weapons? Because of that concern, will she inform the House when the then Northern Ireland Ministers knew that a faulty batch was being used, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary knew that it was firing faulty plastic bullets and, above all, when the Northern Ireland police authority knew faulty weapons were being discharged during that period?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and acknowledge to the House the efforts that he has made on that and other issues. As he points out, the issue causes distress to sections of the community; I know it also caused distress to the RUC when its personnel found out that they had been using equipment that was not up to specification.
I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's three specific questions. As for the Northern Ireland Office and the RUC, I think that the RUC knew on 26 March this year and the Government knew at the beginning of April. I do not know the answer to his question about the police authority, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Hunter: How can negotiations be held about the marches when Sinn Fein places convicted republican terrorists on residents' groups? If the two Governmentsrightly—will not hold discussions with the Provisionals this side of a ceasefire, why should others?

Marjorie Mowlam: I did not hear the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question. Will he repeat it?

Madam Speaker: It would be a good idea if hon. Members did not cheer the party leaders as they come in. As I have said before, it is time consuming.

Mr. Hunter: If Sinn Fein places convicted terrorists on residents' groups, how can there be negotiations? The two Governments—rightly—will not talk with Sinn Fein. Is not it unreasonable to expect others to do so?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Residents' groups in areas where there have


been difficulties with parades contain a broad mixture of people. He is absolutely right that some are ex-convicts, but that applies to groups representing both sides of the community. I take the point that some people do not want to talk to Sinn Fein members, and we are trying to find ways around that if possible. Whatever the origins or backgrounds of the individuals in residents' groups, there is no doubt that they express the wishes of the nationalist communities in their areas. We have talked to them in great detail, and they represent the nationalists' fears. We must listen to the fears and demands of both communities.

Madam Speaker: I hope that the House and Ministers will note that we have dealt with only six questions on the Order Paper today. That is unsatisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Ministerial Visit

Mr. Pearson: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans next to visit Dudley. [1406]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have no immediate plans to visit Dudley, but I did so on the occasion of my hon. Friend's magnificent by-election victory. I am delighted that he held the seat at the general election. He will know that I am due to visit the west midlands on Friday.

Mr. Pearson: Will my right hon. Friend spare some time to visit Wordsley hospital's recently built maternity unit—where both my daughters were born—which is scheduled to be bulldozed as part of the local NHS trust's proposed capital investment plan? Will he talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about urgently reviewing the plan so that we can have a successful private finance initiative project that meets the wishes and needs of local people in Dudley and build an NHS of which we can all feel proud once again?

The Prime Minister: If I may, I shall just point out to Opposition Members that they promised but never delivered a single project. A little humility on their part might be a good idea. In relation to the PFI, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced a review, which will enable us to get the work done quicker and better than under the previous Administration. My hon. Friend will know of the two problems left by the resounding incompetence of the previous Administration: first, no PFI contract was delivered; and, secondly, vast sums of money were spent on bureaucracy in the NHS, rather than on patient care. I am pleased to say that both will be dealt with, and a review of the Dudley service will be a part of my right hon. Friend's review.

Engagements

Mr. Burstow: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 June. [1407]

The Prime Minister: I had a meeting today with Transport Commissioner, Mr. Neil Kinnock. Later today, I will go to France for a meeting with President Chirac. In addition, I have had meetings with Cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Burstow: Will the Prime Minister consider, in national carers week, that the only way in which the

Government can make a difference to Britain's 6.8 million carers is by providing the additional resources necessary to implement fully both the spirit and the letter of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995? If the Government do not deliver on that, all they will be offering is tea and sympathy.

The Prime Minister: I would like to pay tribute to the enormous amount of work done by the almost 7 million carers in this country. They do it in circumstances of great difficulty and often of genuine hardship. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). We are, of course, committed to implementing it
It is extremely important, if we are to put caring on a proper basis for the long term, that there be the right co-operation between community care services and local health services. That is something which we are also committed to doing. Of course, we have to work within the available resources, but we will none the less make substantial progress on the Act.

Mr. Connarty: The Prime Minister may have noted last week that the Securities and Investments Board instructed one major pensions company to retrain its whole work force because they are still mis-selling pensions. Can he assure the House and the country that the Government will ensure that people who are mis-sold pensions will be fully compensated for what is essentially an abuse of a position of trust by the pensions companies?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. About 600,000 people have been mis-sold pensions. It is an absolute scandal, and one which we are determined to put right. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has already agreed to bring together the various pensions groups to consider how the situation can be put right. It is important that people should be given proper compensation. In advance of the meeting, we cannot detail the specific recommendations that will be made, but we are considering the problem urgently. We have acted on it with considerable speed after coming to power, and we will act on it further as soon as we can.

Mr. Spring: Given the immense importance of the American air force presence at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, is the Prime Minister aware of the anger and anxiety in my constituency following calls by local Labour councillors for the bases' closure? Will he take this opportunity to condemn those anti-American sentiments and will he institute whatever is required within his party to put a stop at once to damaging anti-NATO activities? [1408]

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the comments to which the hon. Gentleman adverts, but, as he should know, we are strong supporters of both the alliance with America and NATO, and it is absolutely clear that there is no question of the bases being closed. The Labour party in government has done an extremely good job in securing a good future for the transatlantic alliance that we hold dear.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is his Government's intention to ensure that before this Parliament is over people with disabilities enjoy the same civil rights as the rest of us?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend points out, we are of course committed to making sure that those who are disabled get proper civil rights. We have made that clear all the way through. I pay tribute to the work that he and many of my hon. Friends have done in trying to promote disabled people's rights.
When the measures in the United States were introduced, there were great shouts that they would put companies out of business, that people would not be able to cope and that the cost burden would be too great. In fact, business has gained as a result of the introduction of those measures. It is precisely because we believe that disabled people have a good and genuine role in our society that we are committed to the rights that my hon. Friend describes.

Mr. Heseltine: During the election campaign, the Labour party's spokesman on schools, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), gave an assurance that children with assisted places which go up to the age of 13 would be able to keep those places when the scheme was abolished. Will the Prime Minister confirm that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise this, and I hope that my answer will give him some satisfaction. The position, as he knows, is that the vast majority of children on the assisted places scheme are there for secondary education between the ages of 11 and 18. He will know also that prior to the general election his Government also introduced assisted places for those in primary schools. In respect of those children in primary schools up to the age of 11, there is under the Bill an automatic right for assisted places to continue all the way through the schooling. In respect of those between the ages of 11 and 13, there is a discretion on the part of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The Secretary of State has already made it clear that those between the ages of 11 and 13, where the normal school leaving age in that area is—exceptionally—12 or 13, will be protected as well. He has also made it clear that school children between the ages of 10 to 13 in the middle schools will also be protected. In respect of the subject matter that was raised in the debate last night—those children that come in aged four or five—the Secretary of State will make it clear today that he will exercise his discretion in respect of those children, provided that they have been given a promise or an understanding that their assisted place will go all the way through to 13.

Mr. Heseltine: The Prime Minister has outlined a range of discretion in respect of the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for children between the ages of 11 and 13. During the election campaign, a letter was written by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the then shadow Minister for Schools, in which he said:
If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will he honoured through to 13.

There was no reference to discretion: it was a right.

The Prime Minister: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman why it is necessary to have a discretion. In respect of those children who have been given a promise or an understanding that they will go through to the age of 13, that—as was indicated by the letter—must be honoured, but there may be children who were not given a promise or understanding. It is important, to prevent abuse of the system, that we do not end up with taxpayers' money being spent subsidising private school fees for children between the ages of 11 and 13, when no such promise or understanding was given to the parents. In respect, however, of those children for whom an assurance was given, that assurance will be honoured.

Mr. Heseltine: The fact of the matter is that no question of discretion was mentioned during the election campaign. A quite specific commitment was given and the Government are reneging on that commitment. The fact is that last week the Prime Minister did not know the difference between a Bill and a White Paper: this year he does not know the difference between the ages of 11 and 13. Everyone will remember that in the election he said that they would honour their specific pledges or they would not be trusted. Already, it is obvious that this Government cannot be trusted.

The Prime Minister: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that if that was a late leadership bid, I think it will be unsuccessful. If I can put him right, I have made it clear that the assurance that has been given will be honoured. It is important that there is a discretionary element, because we must avoid abuse of the system. If no promise had been given that the schooling would extend to 13, it would mean that two years' worth of taxpayers' money was being given to a child when no such assurance had been given. Let me explain why this is necessary to Conservative Members, who have attempted—I do not say in respect of this, but in respect of other things—to delay this legislation as much as they possibly can. It is necessary because people should have a perfect right to send their children to private schools if they wish, but taxpayers' money should not be used to subsidise that. Taxpayers' money should be used for the state education system. We will use that money to cut class sizes for the five, six and seven-year-olds in our state education system. I believe that the Conservatives' refusal to understand the importance of that is yet another reason why they lost the election.

Mrs. Heal: Could my right hon. Friend tell me the answer to the sum 203 minus 5? Is he aware that half the nine-year-olds in England are unable to do that sum and that a recent survey revealed that we lie tenth out of 17 countries? What will his Government do to ensure that basic literacy is not an optional extra for our school children?

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: I feel as if the shadow of Dan Quayle is standing over me. Of course, my hon. Friend and I both know the answer, so there is no need to say it.

Mr. Skinner: The Tories only add up to 164.

The Prime Minister: But can they count? That is the point. We have of course taken action on literacy and


numeracy as one of the Government's first priorities. I feel that prioritising those areas is the right thing for our Government to do. Many things should be changed in the primary school—and, indeed, the secondary school—education system, but there is no greater priority than getting basic literacy and numeracy skills right. We have set rigorous targets for that and we intend to meet those targets. Again, if we carry that through—and I believe that we shall—we will have done something very substantial not only for individual children but for the whole future economic and social prosperity of our nation.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Prime Minister agree with his colleagues both past and present who signed the Claim of Right based on the sovereignty of the Scottish people or does he, as was widely reported before the general election, still believe that sovereignty rests with him as an English Member of Parliament? [1410]

The Prime Minister: The simple fact is, as, indeed, the Constitutional Convention accepted, that ultimate sovereignty rests with the Westminster Parliament. Of course that is so.

Mrs. Ewing: No.

The Prime Minister: Well, it is actually there in the Constitutional Convention. In respect of the Claim of Right and sovereignty of the Scottish people, what could be better than giving them the sovereign right to decide in a referendum whether they want a Scottish Parliament? That is surely the sensible way to proceed. Having watched the debate with considerable interest over the past few months, I believe that the vast majority of people in Scotland, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), are less interested in those types of constitutional intricacy than they are in seeing how the Scottish Parliament delivers better health, better education, better law and order services to the people. If we all concentrated on that, we would get a long way.

Mr. Barnes: At the general election, Labour stood on a programme on opencast mining that contained 10 points. What progress has been made on that? It is of vast importance to many of our constituents.

The Prime Minister: I cannot off the top of my head tell my hon. Friend exactly what progress has been made. He will know that, in his area, it is a major issue. It is in my constituency, too. If he will allow me, I shall ensure that I write to him to say exactly what progress has been made on the points that he raises.

Mr. Flight: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be aware that the majority of shares in the privatised utilities are owned by pension funds or pensioners. Will he assure the House that, as the previous Government provided compensation to pensioners who suffered from the increase in VAT on fuel, the Government will provide compensation to pensioners and pension funds that suffer a loss of value in their savings and investments as a result of the windfall tax? [1411]

The Prime Minister: Rather than compensating them for having put VAT on fuel, the previous Government,

whom no doubt the hon. Gentleman would have supported, should never have put it on in the first place. As for pension funds and the windfall tax, I really do not know how anyone looking at the results of the companies over the past few weeks can doubt the wisdom and basic fairness of a windfall tax. It is the right, fair way to put in place a jobs and education programme for our young people that is desperately needed in many parts of the country. I should tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches that we were elected on that mandate. That was the promise we made and, unlike the previous Government, we will carry through our promise.

Mr. Linton: In carrying out his programme of constitutional reforms, will the Prime Minister consider laying down at least minimum standards of democracy for the election of the Leader of the Opposition?

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions must be asked of the Prime Minister for which he has a responsibility.

Mr. Linton: Will my right hon. Friend introduce minimum standards of democracy for all elections that affect the conduct of the House? As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) won the first ballot with 49 votes, whereas my right hon. Friend, when elected Leader of the Opposition, won 508,000 votes at the same stage—more than 10,000 times more—will he also consult the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am tolerant of new Members, but let me make the matter clear so that everyone is aware. Let us have a seminar for just one moment. Questions must be asked of the Prime Minister for which he has responsibility. He has no responsibility for what happens on the Conservative Benches. I now call Mr. Ashdown, who I am sure has a very good question for the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ashdown: As always, Madam Speaker, as always
At the election, the Labour party said that it would retain for two years, if I recall correctly, not only the Conservative Government's overall spending plans, but even the individual departmental budget ceilings. Is that still Government policy?

The Prime Minister: The position is precisely as we outlined it during the election campaign. The comprehensive spending review will be announced at 3.30 pm today. The purpose of that is simply to ensure that we get the best value for money for the spending plans that are put through
In all honesty, we have inherited a national debt that doubled under the previous Administration. This year, we will pay out in interest payments on the debt that they ran up more than we spend on law and order or defence. For that very reason, we have to make absolutely sure that we keep a tight rein on public spending.

Mr. Ashdown: The departmental spending review may well commit the Government to maintaining that two-year ban in terms of the overall total and the individual budget ceilings. The Government know that we think that it is


wrong that one cannot raise targeted taxes for targeted expenditure on education, but surely it must be plain dotty that savings cannot be transferred from one Department to another. The effect of that, as the Prime Minister must surely know, is to deepen the crisis in education.
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he wrote the Labour manifesto for the election he made a commitment not to allow dogma to intrude into children's education? Do not the Government apparently intend to do precisely that?

The Prime Minister: I say, with the greatest respect, that I do not think that that is a substantial point.
The comprehensive spending review, which will be announced at 3.30 pm, is precisely designed to ensure that we get proper value for money. It is always possible to say that we should be spending more money on every single part of Government expenditure.

Mr. Kirkwood: He was not saying that.

The Prime Minister: He was. He said that he would have preferred targeted taxes to increase public spending. He stood for election on a programme that, perfectly honestly and perfectly rightly according to his views, called for tax rises in connection with virtually every aspect of Government expenditure.
We made a clear and specific pledge during the election, and we will carry it out. We have to do that in difficult financial circumstances—and that is the responsibility of Government—because the previous Administration got public finances into their current state. They did that despite North sea oil, the asset sales and all the rest of it. For that very reason, we have got to keep a tight rein on public spending. We will do that, but we will not do so dogmatically—of course not. For example, we will phase out the money on the assisted places and use it to reduce class sizes; for example, we will make sure that the windfall tax helps young people on training programmes; for example, we will cut national health service bureaucracy. That is precisely what I would call using public spending wisely and making sure that when we put a tax in place, it is fair. That is what we have done.

Mr. Home Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the wider effects of the division and inequality that we have inherited from the previous Administration? Will he consider the position of people on low incomes in this country? Surely it is bad enough that they have a low standard of living. Is it not worse still that a disproportionate number of them also suffer from bad health, which often leads to early death? After all the years of procrastination and neglect by the outgoing Administration—starting with the cover-up of the Black report on health and inequality in Britain in 1980—what will the new Labour Government do to make things better for people on low incomes? [1413]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise that concern. It is for that reason that the Secretary of State for Health has asked Sir Donald Acheson to conduct a further review into inequality and the link between wealth and health. It is important to do that because the Black report, which was commissioned by a Labour Government, was effectively buried by the last

Conservative Government. These inequalities do matter and there is no doubt that the published statistics show a link between income, inequality and poor health. It is important to address that issue, and we are doing so. The purpose of the windfall tax is to address that matter on behalf of young people and the long-term unemployed. We are also addressing the issue by introducing the minimum wage, which will help those on low incomes, and with welfare measures, particularly those designed to get single parents back to work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] Conservative Members may shout, "Boring" but most people in this country want those issues to be tackled.

Mr. Alan Clark: Most people in this place would agree with the Prime Minister that an invited audience is more congenial than any other sort. We are an elected body of representatives. What are we to infer from the fact that the Prime Minister has halved the number of occasions on which he comes to the Chamber to answer questions and instead goes round the country to speak to hand-picked audiences selected by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) at supposed question-and-answer sessions?

The Prime Minister: There is precisely the same amount of time for Prime Minister's questions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is setting up a Select Committee to look at the procedures of the House and related issues. Politicians should go round the country and talk to the public more often. It is important that members of the public, as well as Members of the House, get the chance to question the Prime Minister.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Prime Minister agree that the people and the Government of Britain owe a moral duty to the people of Hong Kong that will not end with the handover ceremony next month? [1414]

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is an important matter and I shall be attending the handover ceremony. I anticipate that the present Prime Minister of China will be there. We are committed to the Joint Declaration, which protects the rights of people in Hong Kong, and we shall do everything in our power to ensure that it is carried out. We have a considerable obligation to the 6.5 million people who live in Hong Kong. My hon. Friend will remember how, in the previous Parliament, we helped some of those people to obtain their proper rights of citizenship and passports precisely because of our concerns. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand from what I have said that we take those concerns and the interests of those people very seriously indeed. Although we wish to have good relations with China—they are important both for Hong Kong and for the British national interest—we want to ensure that the words of the Joint Declaration are carried out.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Prime Minister—and, I hope, the House—join me in sending good wishes to the people of Eigg, who are this week celebrating the long-overdue community ownership of their island? When will there be a comprehensive reform of the feudal system of land tenure in Scotland—I mean reform, not review, which seems to be this Government's favourite word? [1415]

The Prime Minister: On the latter part of the hon. Lady's question, I can make no promises. I am, however, happy to send my good wishes to the people of Eigg and I hope they enjoy their celebration very much. Unfortunately, I shall not be there with them.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: As we are to have a free vote on the use of handguns, does the Prime Minister accept that Parliament has a moral responsibility to support a ban on handguns and that we owe that responsibility particularly to the parents of Dunblane and to other parents who are concerned about their children? [14161]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that that is to be the subject of debate later. We owe a moral responsibility to the victims of Dunblane and their families, which is why we have brought forward legislation on the matter. It is true that the last Government did a great deal in the banning of handguns, but we believe that all handguns should be banned. That is my personal belief. There will be a free vote on the issue and I shall personally support the proposed measures, because they are the right ones. We all remember the day of Dunblane and what happened there and we want to do everything in our power to make sure that it never happens again.

Spending Review

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about our approach to public spending in the medium term and to the comprehensive spending review promised in our manifesto.
We set out our spending plans for this year and next in our manifesto. We made it clear that tough decisions would be needed, but that such an approach was essential. We shall maintain that approach. This statement looks beyond the next two years to the medium term.
We will deliver prudent and sound management of the public finances to provide a stable platform for investment and growth; and we will ensure that public spending achieves the objectives that we have set ourselves—objectives which are based on our key principles of opportunity, fairness, employment and investment. To achieve that, we must put the public finances into proper shape.
Since 1990, public sector debt has almost doubled as a proportion of national output. In 1994, we were told there would be a Budget balance in 1998–99; in 1995, we were told it had slipped a year to 1999–2000; and last year, it slipped again to 2000–01. As a result, after five years of growth, we are still borrowing to cover our current spending: the current deficit was about £20 billion last year and the last Budget forecast that we would stay in deficit for the next two years, despite making some questionable assumptions. In order to rebuild public trust in the management of the public finances, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has asked the National Audit Office to review the forecasting assumptions he set out in the House on 20 May.
The public have a right to know not only that total spending is affordable and prudent, but that their money is being spent on their priorities, that it is being spent efficiently and that the spending is effective. The Government spend more than £300 billion, equivalent to over £5,000 a year for every man, woman and child in the country. We will reorder that £300 billion to meet our objectives, which were endorsed by the people on 1 May.
Public spending needs to be clearly focused, and we will achieve that objective. There is no better time for a root-and-branch reappraisal of public spending priorities than at the start of a new Government.
We showed the way when we were in opposition. We said that we would provide nursery places for all four-year-olds, and we will find the money by scrapping nursery vouchers. We promised to cut waiting lists in the national health service, and we will release the funds by releasing savings from red tape and bureaucracy. We promised to reduce class sizes for five, six, and seven-year-olds, and we will find the money to pay for it by abolishing the assisted places scheme.
We have already made a start in delivering those promises, within weeks of the election. We will continue this approach in government, stripping out ill-targeted programmes that benefit only the few, and redirecting spending towards the priorities of the many.
The comprehensive spending review I am announcing today will carry on that process. It will set out clear objectives for all Departments. It will examine how we

can achieve our objectives of improving standards in education, modernising the welfare state and getting people into work—in short, delivering our manifesto commitments as efficiently and effectively as we can.
Every Department will scrutinise its spending plans in detail from a zero base, and ask, how does each item of spending contribute to the Government's objectives as set out in our manifesto? Why are we spending this money? Do we need to spend it? What is it achieving? How effective is it? How efficiently are we spending it?
Every objective will be costed and Departments' effectiveness in achieving them will be scrutinised. We will make sure that we know how much we are spending on each objective, and that we can demonstrate to the public what we have achieved as a result.
We will consider how best to provide services. What should be provided by the public sector, the private sector, or a combination of both in public and private partnerships? As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, what counts is what works.
As well as looking at spending in each Department separately, we will look at issues that cross departmental boundaries. Those cross-departmental reviews will ensure that we are not hidebound by the existing structure of government. The review will be co-ordinated by the ministerial committee on public expenditure, which will look at spending across Departments.
We will look in particular at Departments' efficiency in making the best use of their assets. We have asked Departments to draw up an inventory of their assets—something that no Government have ever achieved before. We need to know what the Government own, and whether they need those assets. If not, we shall reallocate the proceeds where they are needed most.
The review will be thorough and far reaching. All Departments and all Ministers will be involved. It will take 12 months to complete and its conclusions will inform a new set of public spending plans for the rest of this Parliament—a set that reflects our priorities and meets the country's needs beyond that. It will take the long-term view.
The review process is already under way. Terms of reference for the departmental reviews will be published shortly. The Government have already shown their determination to achieve their objectives. The comprehensive spending review will provide us with a clear sense of direction and the long-term view that every Government need. We will ensure that the Government spend public money wisely and fairly, so that public spending matches the people's priorities.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the Chief Secretary aware that we are always glad when he comes to the House to give us information about what the Government are doing? However, the Government already have a history of not coming to the House when they have serious policy announcements to make.
We were rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should come here with a rather platitudinous rewrite of a speech that the Chancellor made in January when in opposition, and that he should lift a little of the language that the Conservative Treasury team used over the past four years on efficiency and the best use of public money. He told us nothing in his statement.
The right hon. Gentleman wants a reaction to the only objectives he set. He said that his purposes are opportunity, fairness, employment and investment. Is he aware that we agree with all those purposes? I can think of no one, of any political view, who would not agree.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the aim is to spend public money wisely. I dare to speak for the other political parties when I say that every hon. Member is in favour of spending public money wisely. Does he realise how incredible his statement is, corning from a party that opposed all the Conservative Government's public spending measures and which had uncosted public spending plans in its election manifesto, which it is plainly not yet able to address?
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to tell the House something about the framework of the review, which was announced a long time ago, will he say whether he is still committed to our objective that public spending should be kept below 40 per cent. of national income? Is he committed to an objective where gross Government expenditure each year will grow less rapidly than growth of the economy as a whole? Is he, remarkably for a Labour Chief Secretary, intending to look for all opportunities to move public sector functions into the private sector which it can perform them more effectively and efficiently?
If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer even those questions about a framework policy, we regard it as the beginning of a whole lot of smoke and mirrors—like the National Audit Office review of the Budget assumptions, preparing the way for moving away from strict control of public expenditure and equating it with the party's objectives.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer some specific questions? Can we take it that the present definition of general Government expenditure will stand? Can we take it that the present definitions that underlie the private finance initiative stand, so that there will be no moving off the books expenditure that the Labour party wants to hide?
Will the present systems of accounting for European expenditure—the so-called Euro-PES system—remain intact under that arrangement? Can we have a reassurance about what are known as the Scottish and Welsh formulae—the territorial formulae that underlie the divisions between parts of the United Kingdom? Are those part of the general review? If the tax-raising powers of a Scottish Parliament are to be used, will there be offsetting savings in public expenditure for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Those questions must have been approached at the start of this review of public expenditure, but the Chief Secretary has told us about none of them, nor about the specifics of his approach.
A moment ago, the Prime Minister gave the leader of the Liberal Democrats the impression that the purpose was to tighten up fiscal policy. We listened to him say yet again that every departmental total is set for two years. He went on to criticise the record, and was plainly talking about tightening up policy. Is that the case? Are public spending plans to be stuck to for two years and then reduced, or are we right strongly to suspect that, whatever

else comes out of this review, the Labour Government will spend much more public money in three years' time than would have been spent had the former Conservative Government stayed in office?

Mr. Darling: It would be wrong of me not to congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on his showing in yesterday's leadership election. We wish him well, although we appreciate that the feeling may not be shared by all the Members on the Opposition Front Bench. I also welcome him and what is left of the former Government's Treasury team to the Opposition Front Bench, as only two of them made it through the general election.
The last time that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a statement, the right hon. and learned Gentleman complained bitterly that he had not had time to look at it. I understand that he received my statement at 1.30 pm, although one might not have realised that for all he had to say about it.
Let me deal with the questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put. When it comes to fairness, the Conservative party is in no position whatever to lecture us or anyone else. Everyone in the country remembers the poll tax, which said everything that anyone needs to know about the Conservative party's lack of fairness. Nor is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a position to lecture us on waste. This country is paying an extremely high price for the problems that have arisen as a result of the BSE scandal to which the previous Government contributed through their short-sighted decisions.
As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question about whether we would keep the share of public spending below 40 per cent., every year the Conservative party announced a total, and every year they failed to meet that total. It is therefore in no position to lecture us on keeping to promises. [Interruption.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked a number of specific questions—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members would stop bawling and shouting, they might hear the answers. I shall deal with the questions in turn. First, on provision by the public and private sector, we have always made it clear that our approach is pragmatic. What counts is what works. The Conservative party was hidebound by a dogmatic approach that was both inefficient and wasteful.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that our approach to the National Audit Office was about smoke and mirrors. On the contrary—it is to shine some light on public finances. Because of the position we inherited, we asked the National Audit Office to look at some of the assumptions that had been made. I should have thought that, in the interests of open government, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have welcomed that. He also asked about the PFI definitions. We are determined to make the PFI work, unlike the last Government, who spoke a lot about it but had precious little to show for it, whether in health or any other area.
I agree that the Euro-PES system is a useful discipline, not just in this country but to keep a check on European spending. The Barnett formula has been in place for some 20 years, and the Conservative Government did nothing about it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's


comments were therefore a bit rich. After all, he used to be one of the most passionate supporters of devolution, with, I believe, tax-raising powers.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome the statement, especially in the light of the important intervention that the Government have made in public expenditure. We should also welcome the most fundamental review that we have seen in recent years and look forward to seeing its effect. It will bring fresh light into the annual public expenditure debate, and I hope that the next one we have will take that into account.
Will my right hon. Friend inform us whether the House of Commons will be involved in such a debate? We do not want to wait for a whole year to pass before we see some of the possibilities that will now be open to us.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and congratulate him on all the work he did as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee over the past few years. He conducted the Committee in an entirely non-partisan way, which will be a good example to his successor.
My right hon. Friend asked about the involvement of the House. The terms of reference of the reviews will be published shortly. My right hon. Friends the heads of Departments will welcome input from wherever it comes—inside or outside the House. As the reviews proceed, the House will become aware of the results. It is expected that the fruits of the reviews will be announced in different ways and at different times, as and when the work is completed, but there will be ample opportunity for the House to pass judgment on them.
The object of the exercise is to introduce as much transparency as possible, so that people can see what the Government's objectives are and judge us on whether they are achieved. At the same time, they will have an opportunity to make contributions to policy development as the process continues.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government's announcement of a full review. A new Government with a new set of priorities must clearly examine all departmental spending and determine how it should be changed in the light of new Government priorities.
During the period of consultation, will there be open sharing of the discussions that are going on, so that the House will have some opportunity to influence the outcome?
The Chief Secretary's review will concentrate on how spending might change in two years' time—it is very much for the medium term. That reminds me and the House of Keynes's dictum that, in the long term, we are all dead. Is it not strange—the Prime Minister's answer was inadequate—that if, in the course of the review, serious savings can be found, the Government are not prepared to transfer a single penny out of any departmental spending to meet a cash shortfall that occurs anywhere else? Is that not unrealistic and unnecessary?
In spite of the very small commitments that the Government have made, will not the crisis in education and health continue for the next two years, with rising

class sizes, more teachers being dispatched and increasing NHS waiting lists? How on earth will the Government tackle that? What will they do about it?

Mr. Darling: I appreciate the support from the hon. Gentleman and his party for the review generally. He is right to say that it looks to the medium and the long term. I can assure him that the Government intend to be around in both the medium and the long term, so he need have no worry on that score. It is important that the Government look to the long term, and do not conduct their affairs simply to react to crises and problems that arise year on year. The Government must have a long-term view, as I think the hon. Gentleman would accept.
With regard to the next two years, we set out our position in the manifesto. It was made entirely clear, as it was by the Prime Minister a few moments ago. Before any question of raising additional money arises, surely it makes sense to ask ourselves, in each and every Government Department—the same applies to local government—where the money is being spent at present. Is it being spent in the most appropriate way? Local authorities should be asking themselves that all the time.
The difference between the Labour party and the Liberals—apart from the fact that we knew that there was every chance that we might win the election and therefore did not make promises unless we were prepared to keep them—is that we are also prepared to conduct a root-and-branch examination of where the public money is spent, so that we can influence and underpin the future decisions that we will take.

Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the review, because it is important for us to make best use of what we have. With regard to its terms of reference, may I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention my concern about education, and about the fact that local authorities such as my own in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire have been underfunded year on year on year, without any level playing field? Will my right hon. Friend consult local authorities closely to make sure that the urgent and long-term educational needs of our children are addressed in the review?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind comments. She will know that, as we made clear during the election campaign, we have pledged in our manifesto to increase the amount of national income that is spent on education over a five-year Parliament. She is correct when she says that the Departments of Education and the Environment must keep in touch with local authorities. All hon. Members have schools in their constituencies and are well aware of the difficulties that they face.
I repeat that, if we are to build for a successful future and to ensure that expenditure on education is spent well and that standards are raised, we must be satisfied that existing expenditure is allocated appropriately.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, every time he drives north through Bedfordshire on the A 1, he negotiates one of the most dangerous stretches of road in Europe? It is imperative that several small road safety schemes be


carried out in that area. Must they wait two years before anything is done, while the warm words congeal on the plate?

Mr. Darling: I assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had no luck in the past 18 years in persuading his colleagues of the merits of those schemes when they had responsibility for the Al and for every other road in the country.
I do not often drive up the A1—it is some years since I have done so—but I think I know the stretch of road to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is reviewing the roads programme, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will want to make representations to him, in the hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to him with more consideration than his right hon. Friends did.

Mr. Giles Radice: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is entirely sensible for a newly elected Government to implement their manifesto pledge to conduct a root-and-branch examination of public spending, particularly when it amounts to £300 billion? I am amazed that the Conservative party does not welcome such a review—I suppose it is because it is in the throes of a chaotic leadership election.

Mr. Darling: Nothing surprises me about the Conservatives" who appear to be descending to some extremely oppositionist tactics. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He has done valuable work in the past while serving on the Treasury Select Committee. Opposition Members might have grounds for complaint—because it would be quite irresponsible—if we did not embark on reviews such as this. This review is absolutely essential. We promised to conduct it, and it is another Labour promise that we are implementing.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.

Mr. Edward Davey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is an inconsistency—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I called Mr. HeathcoatAmory—my pronunciation must be very bad this afternoon. We shall hear from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).

Mr. Davey: I apologise, Madam Speaker: I thought that you had called me.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is an inconsistency in his statement? He began by pillorying the previous Administration and their fiscal figures, claiming that they were always changing and were incorrect. However, he is then prepared to accept their spending pledges and to embrace them as somehow sensible and practical. That approach is not consistent. May I suggest a way out for him and for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor: they could review capping and local

government finance immediately, thereby enabling local authorities to raise council tax and spend the proceeds on education.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will know, if he has read our manifesto, that we are committed to examining the current crude capping system as part of the review process. As for his other points, either he has not listened to the debate or he wrote his question beforehand, because I have answered his queries when replying to other speakers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: While sitting in this place every day, I have heard Liberal Members asking questions about this, that and the other at every question time. I get the impression that they have already spent the 1 p on income tax six times over during this Parliament.
On a more serious note, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that any spending review and any resulting savings could mean a net loss of jobs? Another part of the Labour manifesto promised that we would protect jobs. Therefore, will he ensure that this comprehensive review will not result in a net loss of jobs, and that any savings made will be used to ring-fence prescription charges?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree whole-heartedly with what he said about the Liberals. During the election campaign, the Liberals must have spent the 1p several times over. We had only to listen to successive Liberal spokesmen at different studios throughout the country to find that the money was spent over and over again.
We have made it clear that all aspects of Government spending must be examined. It would be wrong, for example, to exclude prescription charge problems where there are anomalies, where one illness is recognised for free prescriptions while others are not. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health will be examining that.
My hon. Friend will be aware, first, that we are committed to introducing the welfare to work programme, which is an important part of our promise to the country. The programme will put many people who are now unemployed back into work or into educational opportunities. Secondly, it is essential—this underpins my statement—that we have a stable economic background that will enable us to achieve long-term sustainable growth, which is the one way that we shall be able to guarantee to increase jobs across the board.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: May I save the Minister the trouble and expense of this review by telling him that the public expenditure targets that he has signed up to are indeed tough, as they should be, but perfectly attainable given enough political determination? They will not be achieved, however, if he continues to take on extra unnecessary expenditure such as shutting down the entirely legitimate sport of. 22 pistol shooting and having to compensate those affected. Will the right hon. Gentleman take responsibility for the expenditure target that he has taken on rather than continue to govern by review?

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to have more confidence in the former Government's spending totals than the shadow Chancellor does.
As for the Government's compensation scheme, it is one of those issues where Members have to reach a judgment on whether the banning of the guns concerned is justified, as many right hon. and hon. Members believe. If it is justified, consequences flow for compensation. There is a wider issue at stake, which the House is about to debate, rather than the sum that might he spent on compensation.

Ms Kali Mountford: May I take this opportunity of welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement? Does he agree that we need long-term spending plans for public spending priorities, and that it was right to make those plans? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that it is time now to break out of the boom-and-bust policies that so dogged the Conservative party?

Mr. Darling: I absolutely agree on both points. The legacy of boom and bust, which the previous Government left us, and which they inflicted on the country, has been highly damaging. It is one reason why industry and business have not taken the long-term view that has been taken in other countries. Sound public finances are an integral part of ensuring that we have a stable platform on which to build.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for long-term spending plans. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the difficulties that local authorities face. Difficulties arise where spending programmes are suddenly changed because the Government lose control of their economic objectives. We are determined not to allow that to happen to us.

Mr. William Ross: At the beginning of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman expressed his righteous horror at the tremendous growth in public sector debt over the past few years. Is part of the intention behind the review to move towards a balanced budget? If so, what is the right hon. Gentleman's time scale for that? If assets are identified during the review that are not needed, and they are to be disposed of, how will the right hon. Gentleman use the moneys that result? Will they be used for current expenditure or for the reduction of public sector debt?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has raised two points. First, we are committed to the golden rule of public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have more to say about that in his Budget statement shortly.
So far as assets are concerned, there are two points. The compilation of a national register of all the assets that the state owns is long overdue. The Ministry of Defence, for example, owns some 90,000 buildings, and the public and the House would expect any Government to take a rational view as to whether those assets are needed.
With respect, before deciding how the money should be spent, it is important to find out whether it can be raised in the first place. As I said in my statement, if we do not need assets—wherever they may be—there is no

point in holding on to them. It would be far better to sell them and use the proceeds so that they benefit public finances and public services.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can we assume from the Chief Secretary's response to the former Chancellor that the Barnett formula is sacrosanct in all circumstances?

Mr. Darling: As I said, the Barnett formula has been in existence for some 20 years—it was not disturbed by the previous Government. As my hon. Friend will see when the White Papers on devolution are published, we believe that the Barnett formula, based as it is on the needs of the populations of the different countries, plays a very important part in deciding how public expenditure is to be divided up. He will see the position clearly stated in the White Papers, which are to be published shortly.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that he is keen to have transparency. In the interests of transparency, will he tell the House whether, in this extensive review, he anticipates any changes in the definition of what is and what is not public expenditure? In particular, does he intend to look at the definition of public expenditure as performed by local authorities?
Did the right hon. Gentleman really mean to suggest—as he did in reply to an earlier question—that the current criteria for capping will have to wait until the review is completed and, therefore, will not be effective for the next two years?

Mr. Darling: I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman was such a fierce opponent of capping, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is reviewing these matters, will listen with great care to what he has said.
So far as changing definitions is concerned, the House will be aware that there are no shortcuts. Fiddling definitions to achieve an end is not justified and we do not intend to do it.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When the Prime Minister referred at Question Time to the interest rates on the national debt, did he not underline the need for this review if the Government are to deliver their strategic priorities for welfare, education and the national health service, and deliver them with efficiency and fairness?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. The public would expect public funds to be used wherever possible to deliver front-line services such as education rather than on repaying debt. As the Prime Minister has said, the national debt doubled under the Conservatives between 1990 and the election.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The Chief Secretary is obviously right to conduct a review, but, given that the stated objectives in the review he has announced today are motherhood and apple pie, I think that we have a right to probe a bit further.
Is it the right hon. Gentleman's purpose to try to set the trend for changing priorities between Government Departments or is it a set of priorities within one


Government Department that cannot have a virement to another Government Department? Is he attempting to try to inject more private capital into the public system? Is he attempting to change the Euro-PES system, under which I, as a former DTI Minister, suffered considerably, or is this whole thing a smokescreen to try to keep his own Back Benchers happy for the next two years while he struggles with the existing spending plans?

Mr. Darling: I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Euro-PES, but it is important to keep discipline, not just in UK public spending, and to maintain pressure on European spending.
On private capital, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Labour party has been committed to public and private partnerships for many years. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister first raised that before the 1992 election. Where it is appropriate, the introduction of private capital in the provision of public services is something we support. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health made an announcement about that yesterday.
So far as the hon. Gentleman's general welcome is concerned, he will appreciate that he would have been on far stronger ground if the Government had declined to examine what they spend their money on. Indeed, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the previous Government, might have urged his colleagues to do the same thing when they were in power.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the money within Departments, as opposed to across Government as a whole. We have told heads of Departments that, if they want to reallocate resources, they must consider that; but any Government, and the Chancellor in particular, must review the allocation of spending between Departments overall. Of course, ultimately, the Cabinet has responsibility for all public spending to ensure that its programme and objectives are delivered right across the board, and we will do that.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no area of spending will be exempt from the review? For example, will the review include spending on Trident and Eurofighter? Will he also be looking at the long-term revenue consequences of using private funding to finance capital projects, as against the revenue consequences of public borrowing?

Mr. Darling: On the latter point, my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that the Government, like, I think, the previous Government, are committed to introducing resource accounting, which will enable us to make better comparisons between public and private provision. The present system of public accounting leaves much to be desired and, in the view of some, is rather old-fashioned and inappropriate for today's practices. That will enable us to obtain a better comparison between the two, which is clearly important, because we must be satisfied that, whichever way we procure public services—whether publicly, privately or a combination of both—we are obtaining value for money.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that, some two weeks ago, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary announced a

defence review. But I can assure her that, right across the board, the comprehensive review means exactly what she might think—it will be looking at all aspects of public expenditure.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Chief Secretary accept that there will be a suspicion that what he is about is kicking the whole issue of public expenditure into touch at a time when there is a crying need for additional public expenditure in so many areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman subscribe to the view that public expenditure should be no more than 40 per cent. of GNP, and on what basis of rationality does he approve of that target? Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman see lottery money as part of public expenditure?

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will clearly have more to say on public spending as a percentage of GNP in his Budget statement. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that this is somehow an attempt to kick public spending decisions into touch—far from it. If we did not start thinking now about the problems that we may face during this Parliament and beyond, he might have been on strong ground for criticising us.
The Government are taking a long-term view of public spending; because it sometimes takes a long time to change the pattern of spending to make provision for three or four years' time, it is only right that we should start the review immediately on entering office.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the spending review must ensure that efficiency becomes the watchword of the Government? Does he agree that the Opposition's record is one of waste and inefficiency, as exemplified by the BSE and poll tax fiascos?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the Government spend some £5,000 for every man, woman and child in Britain, and the public expect that all public expenditure, whether by the Government, local government, quangos or whatever, should be efficient. My hon. Friend is right that the previous Government's record in that regard left much to be desired.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I wish that it was possible to say equally sincerely that he has made a good start. However, he has spectacularly evaded all the key questions asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—including, for example, the question whether if additional spending is voted by a Scottish Parliament, that will be compensated for by public expenditure reductions elsewhere or whether that would simply be a way of driving a coach and horses through the Government's public expenditure totals with impunity.
If the right hon. Gentleman insists on running away from that question, let me ask another. He said that he will have an asset review and that public expenditure will depend on the result. Does that mean that if he identifies additional possibilities for privatisation, the proceeds of those privatisation sales will finance additional public expenditure rather than be used to reduce indebtedness;


and that, therefore, the undertaking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, for the next two years, the existing public expenditure departmental totals will be respected, is now—how shall I delicately put it?—inoperative?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is just wrong on his final point. We made our position clear on departmental spending, not only in the manifesto but subsequently. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman could not welcome what I said. I fear that he will be on Finance Bill Committees for many years to come, so we shall cross swords there, if not on the Floor of the House, in the future.

Ms Beverley Hughes: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the clear direction that it gives. He referred to exploring the potential for further public-private sector partnerships. As a former leader of a metropolitan authority, may I ask him whether the Government will build on the outstanding record of Labour local authorities in initiating, sustaining and developing partnerships between the public and private sectors?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right: many local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled authorities, have a good record on public and private finance initiatives, and we want to encourage that. It makes sense to harness the experience of both sectors and to bring them together. That can be wholly beneficial for the communities they serve. At the end of the day, people living in a community want the best possible services. The means of providing those services are usually of less concern to them than the end result of producing what they want at a price that they can afford.

Mr. John Swinney: Does the Chief Secretary understand the public's bewilderment that, despite the change of government, some things remain the same, such as the departmental spending totals? The answer that was given during Prime Minister's questions to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) suggested that, despite the fact that economies in departmental spending may be identified, there will be no change in the way in which spending is allocated.
Does the statement not disguise the Government's attempt to create a smokescreen to hide the fact that public services need more resources? They would do more for honesty if they confronted that reality. Will the Chief Secretary give a definitive and clear answer, which he certainly did not give to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to questions about the sanctity of the Barnett formula and its status in the review?

Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Member goes on about the sanctity of the Barnett formula, given that his party is committed to ending it once and for all. He is in no position to lecture us on that. I have made our position clear. The Government will shortly publish a White Paper on the referendums on devolution, so he will be able to see for himself what our position is.
The hon. Gentleman asserted that the public will be bewildered about our public spending proposals. They will not be bewildered, because we stood on a manifesto commitment on public spending and we are now delivering it. The public are seeing a Government who deliver on their promises—although I appreciate that that may bewilder Conservative Members.
Finally, I shall make a parochial point for those of us who represent Scottish constituencies. We stood on a manifesto, as did the hon. Gentleman, and our party did rather better than his, so there is no cause for bewilderment.

Mr. Mark Todd: May I make three points? First, I welcome the publication of the review's terms of reference and I hope that the document will be widely available so that hon. Members can examine them with some intent. Secondly, it would be useful if that document set out the review's strategic objectives in more detail than my right hon. Friend has been able to give us.
Thirdly, I should like a clearer statement of the methodology that will be used in the review. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend intends to drive the review through a departmental process rather than engage external resources. Will he clarify that?

Mr. Darling: Perhaps I could explain to my hon. Friend, and to the House in general, that it was tempting to delay making the statement until all the terms of reference were agreed and the work was under way. However, no doubt the first person to complain about that would have been the shadow Chancellor, as he has complained about delays in the past. We took the view that it was appropriate to tell the House at this stage what we intended to do. As I have said, we shall publish the terms of reference. So that is the answer on timing.
As for the Departments, the review will engage effort and support right across the Government. All Ministers will be involved. It is appropriate for Departments to carry out their examinations not with the assistance of the Treasury and the efficiency unit alone, but in addition, where appropriate, by engaging the services of people outside.
One of the purposes of making an announcement today is to tell the public, through the House, what we are doing. Many members of the public have clear ideas about how the Government deliver services and how those services might be improved, and they will have the opportunity to contribute.
Lastly, of course, the work has been co-ordinated by the public expenditure committee, a small Cabinet committee, which will ensure that we look right across the board to drive the process forward and achieve the results we want.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I remind the Chief Secretary that, during the general election campaign, Labour spokesmen were assiduous in assuring the voters that there would be no question of Eurofighter's coming under an expenditure review conducted by the Ministry of Defence? Why does he now say that the review will extend to Eurofighter?
How does that square with the supposed efforts of the Secretary of State for Defence to persuade the federal German Government, and his German counterpart, Volker Riihe, to make a production investment on a par with that already earmarked by the United Kingdom Treasury for its share in the production of that most important aeroplane?

Mr. Darling: On Eurofighter, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at last week's Question Time. He made


the British Government's position on Eurofighter absolutely clear. My point was that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary are conducting a review of this country's strategic defence needs for the future, and at the same time, clearly, we are examining the way in which the MOD spends its money.
Any strategic review must be influenced not only by what we would like to do but by what we can afford. The hon. Gentleman, who has long taken an interest in defence, may have some sympathy with that proposition. The Prime Minister made our position on Eurofighter clear and if the hon. Gentleman cares to read last Wednesday's Hansard, he will see it clearly set out.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on.

Points of Order

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that it is good for democracy and of benefit to the House that the questioning of the Prime Minister on a regular basis be free and open. Did you notice that, during Question Time, quite extraordinarily, for every question and supplementary question, only one Labour Member stood up at any one time? That either demonstrates an extraordinary telepathy, or suggests that questions to the Prime Minister are not free and open but are being manipulated. I suggest that Question Time is being abused. May I ask you to investigate?

Madam Speaker: I cannot accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman bases a point of order that is not really a point of order. The number of people who rise has nothing to do with the Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman were to look through the Order Paper carefully, as I do, he would see how few opportunities there are for Back Benchers on either side to put a question to the Prime Minister, because of the way in which the ballot operates.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: No, not on the same point. It is not a point of order; it is a matter for the House.

Mr. David Lidington: On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you look at the Official Report to see whether, in your judgment, the length of time that the Prime Minister takes to answer questions is crowding out the opportunities for Back Benchers to put them?

Madam Speaker: I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I am recording the length both of answers and of the questions put to all Departments. I have not yet completed my inquiry, but when I do I shall have some useful information, which I shall take up with the shadow Leader of the House, as well as with the Leader of the House. I am looking forward to doing so.

Mr. Tim Boswell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was kind of the Prime Minister to come to the House today when clearly he had many international commitments, but there will be occasions when it will be unreasonable for the House to insist on his attendance. It occurs to me that one of the snags of the new arrangements is that, if he is not here on a Wednesday, there is no further chance to question him during that week. I wonder whether you could see that a message gets to the Leader of the House about this point. A week might be a long time in Parliament, but two weeks is such a long time that it is even enough to elect a leader of our party.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench.

Sir David Madel: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that questions


to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury could not have gone on for ever, but, now that we have a Labour Government, could we have brief, Attlee-type questions and answers? The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who has just left the Chamber, asked three questions, which chipped away at vital time that you might have allowed Opposition Members to use—although I am in no way criticising you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising me. I wish we could get back to the Attlee days—particularly at business questions. At that time, Members asked long rambling questions and the Leader of the House simply answered, "No, not next week," and moved on. That was a good period, and it would be splendid to get back to that sort of thing. As Attlee said, "No good at the job—out".

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My concern originates from the long-standing convention of the House that no intervention be made on a maiden speech. The debate will, I hope, be a sensible and perhaps energetic scrutiny of some aspects of the Government's proposals. There are many new Members, some of whom have delivered a maiden speech and some who have not. To avoid confusion—and perhaps embarrassment—would it be possible for you to counsel the House and hon. Members taking part in the debate, who could indicate by semaphore at the outset whether their contribution to the business of the House is their first? Perhaps you can provide some sign yourself, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if a Member who stands up to speak does not have a familiar face, he should listen carefully to the first few phrases, in which a Member making a maiden speech usually pays tribute to his or her predecessor and makes nice comments about his or her constituency. If he or she fails to do that, the Speaker always knows who is making a maiden speech, as do the Whips on either side of the Chamber. Anyone who is interested can approach the Chair or the Whips to find out who is making a maiden speech. I want to be helpful in that area.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
None of us will ever forget the appalling events that took place on 13 March 1996 in Dunblane, when 16 innocent children and their teacher were gunned down by Thomas Hamilton, armed with a lawfully licensed handgun. In response to that tragedy, the previous Parliament passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which banned all higher-calibre handguns. We supported it, but, in our view, it did not go far enough. In our manifesto, we said this about gun control:
In the wake of Dunblane and Hungerford, it is clear that only the strictest firearms laws can provide maximum safety. There will be legislation to allow individual Members of Parliament a free vote for a complete ban on handguns.
That is why, only five weeks after taking office, we have proposed this Bill to give effect to that manifesto commitment.
I strongly commend the Bill's proposals to the House, but I want to make it crystal clear that—as in opposition—it will be a matter for my hon. Friends' individual consciences to decide whether to support or oppose the measure tonight. But none of us should doubt the overwhelming public support for the proposed ban. For only one indication of the extent of public support for a complete handgun ban, I draw the attention of the House to the results of an opinion poll in The Daily Telegraph


last Friday, which showed that 83 per cent. of those polled approved of the Government's proposed ban on all handguns.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: The opinion poll may or may not be correct, but on that logic, the Home Secretary would be introducing a Bill to reinstate capital punishment. Every time there is a poll on that subject, 75 per cent. of people are in favour. That is not a good argument for the Bill.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Of course, it is, in the end, a matter for the individual consciences of hon. Members, but, in making our decisions, we must take account of the strength of public feeling. I do not think that anything like 83 per cent. of people are in favour of capital punishment, but I am well aware that I may not have had my constituents' support when I have marched into the Lobby against it. That is a fact which I have to take into account, but it does not stop me. In a matter of public safety, it is important to recognise the extent of public support for what is in the Bill.
The Bill proposes a total ban on all civilian handguns in general use. The question was last debated on an amendment courageously moved by Mr. Robert Hughes, then Conservative Member of Parliament for Harrow, West. With every justification, he said:
I have evidence from my conversations with a number of Ministers and parliamentary private secretaries that, on a free vote tonight, they would vote for the banning of all handguns."—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 789.]
I suspect that it was precisely because of the prospect that a free vote would have resulted in the acceptance of Mr. Hughes's amendment that Conservative Members were placed under a three-line Whip, imposed, I believe, at the instigation of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The amendment was defeated by 25 votes and the British people have been forced as a result to wait another six months for the outright ban that they patently support to be put before Parliament.
Let me first explain the Bill's provisions. Clause 1 extends to small-calibre pistols—.22 and below—the ban instituted by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Everybody recognises the tragedy of Dunblane, but in the aftermath of such a tragedy—an important action has already been taken in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997—it is essential for the House to look after the liberties of citizens, including minorities. Could the Home Secretary tell us clearly on what basis of principle the Government think it proper to interfere with people's lawful recreation?

Mr. Straw: The basis of principle is the protection of the public. I do not think that there is a huge amount between us and the previous Government, who decided that the protection of the public required the banning of 80 per cent. of handguns, and that that should override what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely right to say that we should all be concerned about—the protection of minorities. We are proposing, for reasons

that I shall explain when I set out the detail of how the Bill will operate, to extend that ban to 100 per cent. of handguns in general civilian use.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: On how many occasions in the past 50 years has a small-calibre pistol been used to commit murder, and what categorisations and classifications have come from that? A small-calibre handgun is designed for sport and for no other purpose, although of course it could be abused.

Mr. Straw: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that issue, because I sought to establish whether the statistics on firearms murders distinguished between small-calibre and high-calibre weapons; the answer is that they do not. We know, however, as I shall explain in more detail later, that. 22 weapons are lethal. As he asks who has been murdered with such weapons, I can mention Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin. I also draw his attention to the fact that. 22 weapons are used for the purpose of killing people both by the Israeli security service and by our own Special Air Services.

Kate Hoey: Obviously, all of us, including my right hon. Friend, are concerned about public safety. Is he aware of my constituents' overriding concern, which is the huge number of illegally held weapons? The police were called out to more than 800 firearms incidents last year in my borough and all the guns were held illegally. How will anything in the Bill help to make my constituents safe from illegally held guns, as opposed to those held in pistol shooting clubs?

Mr. Straw: I am well aware, as my hon. Friend knows, of the problems with firearms incidents in her constituency, because I happen to live there. That important issue was debated at some length during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. We cannot describe with absolute precision the relationship between the regulation of lawfully held weapons and the availability of unlawful weapons. However, we know that countries that have lax firearms controls also have a high level of use of firearms in crimes, and the reverse is true.
We may take the two extremes. The first is the United States, where it is easy in most states of the union to buy weapons over the counter, as I have seen myself, and where there is a huge level of firearms-related homicides and other incidents. At the other end of the scale, Japan has even tighter controls than this country will have, even after the Bill comes into force, and a low level of firearms-related murders. I can also tell my hon. Friend that, in 1995, almost 400 lawfully licensed pistols were stolen. Every one of those pistols was stolen for use by criminals.

Mr. Frank Cook: My right hon. Friend mentioned the assassination of Kennedy in the United States and of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel. Does he believe that if. 22s had been illegal in those countries, those assassinations would not have taken place?

Mr. Straw: It is not possible to say that absolutely, but there is no doubt that if the availability of handguns is restricted, the prospect of their being used in crime is much less.
Clause 1 of the Bill extends to small-calibre pistols the ban instituted by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It does that by putting small-calibre pistols in the same prohibited category of weapons as machine guns, semi-automatic rifles and higher-calibre handguns. The ban does not extend to the narrow range of exemptions already contained in the 1997 Act for people such as vets, slaughterhouse workers and race officials at athletic meetings. Provided such people can convince their police force of a specific need to hold a higher-calibre or. 22 handgun for one of the stated purposes, they may do so. In the majority of cases, a firearms certificate will have to be held with the necessary conditions, as specified by the police.
Clause 2 contains a number of consequential amendments to the 1997 Act, which bring the provisions for the surrender of small-calibre pistols into line with those for higher-calibre handguns. The clause also extends the compensation provisions of the 1997 Act to those small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment. The compensation scheme for those weapons will not be subject to parliamentary affirmative approval, as we intend that it will follow the same lines as that for higher-calibre handguns and ancillary equipment under the 1997 Act, the scheme in respect of which was approved on Monday. A copy of the document describing the administrative arrangements for making ex gratia payments for those items has already been placed in the Library. That is because, from 1 July this year, owners of smaller-calibre pistols will be able to surrender pistols and ancillary equipment on a voluntary basis and to receive an ex gratia payment.

Mr. Michael Howard: rose—

Mr. Straw: I give way to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Howard: Is not it the case, however, that the position on compensation as a result of the Bill will be significantly different from that which arose on the previous legislation? A total ban on handguns will force many clubs to close, which will change the position. Have the Government considered compensating clubs that will be forced to close as a direct result of the Bill, because they will no longer be able to remain open for those who use. 22 calibre pistols?

Mr. Straw: We have applied in the Bill exactly the same provisions for compensation that the shadow Secretary of State—I apologise to him for my error earlier—introduced when he was Secretary of State for the Home Department just a few months ago. If he can show any point in the Bill where we have departed from those principles in respect of our treatment of clubs, I shall certainly actively consider the point that he makes.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romney): Following the question of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about guns in illegal circulation, is there any evidence that pistol shooters who previously used large-bore pistols are using compensation money to switch to. 22 calibre guns? It has been suggested that the Act, as it stands, will not reduce the number of pistols because there will be such a transfer. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that that transfer is

not taking place and that therefore, as a result of the Act, there is a fundamental reduction in the number of handguns in circulation.

Mr. Straw: It was a matter of speculation in the previous Parliament as to whether a reduction in the availability of lawfully licensed handguns down to. 22 calibre and below would result in people switching from higher-calibre handguns to lower-calibre handguns. We cannot say for certain what would have happened had there not been a change of Government. I suspect that, following our manifesto commitment, which could not have been clearer, most people who are going to hand in their higher-calibre weapons will not bother to purchase. 22 handguns, for the obvious reason that they are likely to be banned very shortly.

Mr. Tim Boswell: On the subject of manifesto commitments, the Home Secretary will be aware that, since the legislation introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Home Secretary, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has committed the Labour party to maintaining departmental spending totals. There is now a new spending commitment in respect of compensation for. 22 handguns. What impact will that have on departmental spending plans and where will compensatory savings have to be made?

Mr. Straw: That will be met from within the Home Office budget. It is a relatively small amount compared with the total compensation that was provided for by the shadow Home Secretary when he was the Home Secretary.
Clause 2 gives effect to the schedule containing consequential repeals and clause 3 deals with the short title and provisions as to commencement and extent. The Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland but not to Northern Ireland.
If, as I hope, the Bill becomes law, many entirely law-abiding holders of handguns of. 22 calibre and below will be denied the opportunity to practise their sport. To pick up the point raised by the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), as elected Members of Parliament, we all have to be very careful before we use our power to prohibit actions that were previously lawful and involved no criminal intent. Simple disapproval can never be a ground alone for prohibition. I have thought about the matter a great deal. I accept that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I may have come to different judgments, but I want him and the House to know that I do not lightly come to the House proposing the prohibition of an activity that will affect many people who previously lawfully and entirely properly practised that activity.
We must bear in mind the fact that many branches of handgun competition involve higher-calibre weapons. The provisions of the 1997 Act that was brought in by the previous Government will make it impossible generally for followers of those competitions to practise their sport in Britain. All target shooting disciplines in the Olympic games are restricted to multi-shot handguns of. 22 calibre. I know that that matter weighed with the former Home Secretary when he came forward with his proposals.
The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), when he was the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and I in opposition considered carefully whether there could be separate provision short of an outright ban for such weapons. In the event, not least because of Lord Cullen's conclusions, we decided that creating a distinction between. 22 weapons and others would not be safe or enforceable. We therefore concluded, as we said in our initial evidence to the Cullen inquiry, that, given the lethal nature of handguns, we saw a strong case for banning them altogether.
As a result of the provisions of the 1997 Act and the Bill, it will in general no longer be possible to practise handgun sports on the mainland of Britain. I want to make it clear that that will not in any way stop Britain hosting either the Commonwealth games or, at some future stage, the Olympic games. Indeed, as a north-west Member of Parliament, I am delighted that Manchester is to host the Commonwealth games in 2002. That is a great tribute to the city and to the leadership of my hon. Friend the new Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who, as leader of Manchester city council for so many years, was instrumental in bringing the games to this country. The games will be a huge boost to Manchester and the north-west of Britain, and I wish them every success.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do we take it that that has been affirmed by the British Olympic Association and the world Olympic organisation?

Mr. Straw: It certainly has been discussed with the organisers of the Commonwealth games, but I am not aware whether it has been discussed with those organising the Olympic games. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to deal with that when he replies to the debate.
Of course, handgun shooting events are part of the Commonwealth games, but we should not lose sight of the fact that they represent just eight out of a total of 174 sporting events at those games. It will be possible to hold pistol shooting competitions at the games, for reasons that I shall explain. In addition, it is important to point out that there are another 18 shooting competitions in the Commonwealth games that involve rifles and air pistols, and British teams will be able to practise for and participate in those competitions.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when we discussed that matter. He will also be aware that I have always had grave opposition to the ownership of handguns. I am equally well aware of those who wish to participate in the Olympic games, the Commonwealth games and other international games, and that handgun shooting is part of those competitions. From what my right hon. Friend has said, am I to understand that we shall still allow people to take part in shooting events should the Olympic games or the Commonwealth games be held in the United Kingdom? What puzzles me is, how shall we train our competitors to participate?

Mr. Straw: We shall not be able to train our competitors. There is no dubiety about that. I am not

making any pretence about it. The passage of the Bill, along with the 1997 Act that was passed by the previous Parliament, will make it impossible for British residents to practise their sport of pistol shooting. That is the reality. The House must take that into account when deciding whether to back the Bill. There should be no doubt about that.
As for our hosting of either the Commonwealth games in 2002 or the Olympic games at some stage in the future, it will be possible for pistol shooting competitions to be held within the confines of those games. That is because of the provisions of section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, which is not affected either by the 1997 Act or by the Bill. Under those provisions, special dispensations can be issued on strict conditions to permit target shooting competitions within the context of the games. Those decisions are made by the Secretary of State. Should I be in that position, I would require a guarantee from the organising committee that guns would be handled with the necessary security measures in place.
We shall get in touch with the organisers of the Manchester Commonwealth games in good time, to ensure that arrangements are made to allow target shooting to take place at those championships. As I said earlier, similar arrangements would have to be made for pistol competitions held during any future Commonwealth or Olympic games held in Britain.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Is it not an extraordinary prospect that the right hon. Gentleman is holding out? Foreign teams will be allowed to come to this country to practise a sport in which, in reality, no British team will be able to participate. Is that what he is saying to the House and the country? Is he really saying that foreigners will be allowed to come here and legally do something that our citizens are not allowed to do?

Mr. Straw: Yes, I am saying that. We have to make a balanced choice. My hon. Friends will have a free vote tonight. I am not sure whether Conservative Members will have a similar free vote, but, in the light of the events of the past week, a free vote would probably be advisable on almost every issue. Most people in the country and, as I am sure will be clear in the Lobby tonight, most Members in the House support a ban on handguns in general civilian use. That is the truth and I suspect that that opinion will be approved this evening.
We then have to decide whether to allow that general ban to affect our hosting of the Commonwealth or Olympic games. I have considered the matter closely and I have looked at the powers that the House and the other place agreed in 1968 for special provision in exceptional circumstances. Those provisions are acceptable. There is a world of difference between controlling and securing the safety of the public at specific games such as the Commonwealth games in 2002 and allowing handguns to be held generally by civilians on a licensed basis.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Has the Home Secretary completely ruled out using that


dispensation to enable British competitors to participate in the games and to have a period of training before doing so?

Mr. Straw: I have not ruled that out altogether and if realistic representations are made to me, I shall think about the proposal. But I should require a high degree of convincing before going ahead with it.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: While the Secretary of State is thinking about that matter, will he consider the special position of Bisley? He is well aware that it is the world centre of shooting—a sport in which we have been conspicuously successful in a number of Olympic and Commonwealth games. If the Home Secretary is to consider allowing practice in the way that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested, will he also consider the special worldwide importance of competitive shooting at Bisley?

Mr. Straw: I shall look at the subject again, but we cannot impose a general ban and then make many exceptions.
The provision will not mean the end of all shooting disciplines for British competitors in the Commonwealth games—it is important to get that message across. There are 26 separate shooting disciplines in the Commonwealth games, and the effect of the 1997 Act and the Bill will be to ban British participation in eight of those disciplines; the other 18, including rifle shooting and airguns, will be fully available to British participants.

Mr. Colvin: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I cannot as I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In view of the questions that we have heard, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not believe that the views expressed are those of the whole House. I, for one, fully support what he is doing and believe that it would be no bad thing if throughout the world there were an end to all sports involving murderous weapons.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. We must not forget the extent of public revulsion at the holding of handguns in general civilian use that followed not only Dunblane, but Hungerford. I have no doubt that Labour Members and quite a number of Conservative Members speak for the public and also have the public's safety in mind.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I have already given way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I think that I have dealt with his points at great length.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 allowed the continued use of. 22 pistols under certain conditions. That Act envisaged a complex system of pistol clubs, licensed by the Secretary of State, where. 22 weapons could be stored and used. In the debate on 18 November 1996, the then Secretary of State advanced three arguments for

allowing. 22 weapons to be licensed in secure clubs. First, he claimed by implication that. 22 weapons were inherently safer than higher-calibre weapons. He said:
high-calibre guns are particularly attractive to criminals and their storage in gun clubs in large numbers, whether dismantled or in one piece, would make gun clubs more attractive targets for theft."—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 787.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's view that criminals would distinguish between higher and lower-calibre weapons is palpable nonsense.
The House was invited to believe that if a criminal gang thought that it could break into a gun club—as surely a determined gang could do—it would then turn away and relinquish the loot the moment it discovered that it contained not. 357 magnums, but. 22 semi-automatics. It will not happen like that.
Throughout debates in the previous Session, I was struck by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's curious unwillingness to face up to the fact that. 22 weapons can kill. However, as I said earlier, they can. Many murderers and assassins choose. 22 weapons, and the criminals of whom we are talking would quickly switch their affections to lower-calibre weapons if they thought that they were more easily available.
The truth is, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman by implication accepted, that no level of security could guarantee that. 22 pistols could not be removed from licensed clubs; nor is it possible to safeguard the public when those pistols need to be removed, for example, for servicing or repair or for participation in a competition elsewhere in the country or overseas. In his report, Lord Cullen quotes the British Shooting Sports Council as saying:
no matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would be a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent on recovering his guns to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of the complete gun together with the ammunition for it and perpetrate an outrage.
The second argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to justify the partial ban was that higher-calibre weapons are
four to six times more powerful than a. 22 pistol."—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 787.]
As we have seen so often, he allowed his casuistry to get the better of him. The issue in terms of public safety is not the absolute power of the weapons, but their ability to kill. Lord Cullen destroyed the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument when he wrote in his report:
It should not be supposed that. 22 rimfire cannot be as lethal as other ammunition. The BSSC pointed out that …. 22 cartridges would be as lethal as 9 mm.
The truth is that. 22 weapons can kill as surely as a higher-calibre weapon.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's third argument was that if there were a complete handgun ban, much shooting would be driven underground. As he knows, I would never dismiss that argument—indeed, it should be taken seriously—but the more I consider it, the less weight it carries with me. By definition, all the weapons under consideration are clearly identified, with the owners known to the police. Penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment apply to those who break the law and fail to hand in their weapons. For legitimate sportsmen and women, opportunities remain for competitive sports with shotguns, rifles and airguns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) raised the issue of the number of crimes committed by those in possession of unlawful weapons. We have to bear it in mind that the Bill will release a great deal of police time from licensing gun clubs so that they can search for and identify criminals who use guns. For example, section 13 of the 1997 Act requires pistol holders who want to move their gun outside their normal club for certain prescribed reasons to obtain police permits. Section 13 is written in complicated language and that process would be especially bureaucratic for the police to administer, involving them in possibly endless checking and double-checking of the movement of single guns or small groups of guns.
There is a wider point to be made in support of the Bill. Too often, we wait for disaster or worse to strike before taking effective action to secure the public's safety. I have two words for those who say that a total ban goes too far: Hungerford and Dunblane. I claim no special foresight, but if the House had listened over the years to the sage warnings of several hon. Members on both sides, those appalling tragedies might have been averted. Those hon. Members include my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), both of whom have called consistently over the years for tighter controls.
The House might also have listened to the warnings of the Home Office. Almost 30 years ago, my Department established a review of firearms controls, the findings of which were published in a Green Paper in 1973. That Green Paper recommended highly restrictive controls on firearms, a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and tighter licensing procedures. Had those recommendations been implemented, Michael Ryan could not have lawfully possessed the AK47 rifle with which he killed eight of his 17 victims at Hungerford, and Thomas Hamilton might well have been denied a licence for the 9 mm Browning with which he killed all his victims.
We have to recognise that all of us failed after Hungerford to put in place the controls necessary to reduce significantly the risk of a repeat tragedy. Some 15 months on from the Dunblane killings, we cannot afford to make the same mistake again.
We should listen carefully to the advice of the police, who know best about the dangers to society of the criminal use of weapons. Both the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association have come out in favour of a full and total ban. The Police Federation said about our proposals:
The proposal to ban the private possession of handguns is a victory for common sense. No system can guarantee to exclude every potential mass killer, but we owe it to the victims of Hungerford and Dunblane to take the strongest possible action to prevent a repetition of past tragedies.
It also said:
We believe the public will strongly support this decisive action.
I believe that the police are right in their opinion of the merits of the Bill.
If, on the basis of the votes today—and later in the other place—this House agrees to extend the ban in the 1997 Act to all handguns, I hope that it will be possible to speed up the remaining stages of the Bill before it goes

to the other place. Subject to the views of the other place, I hope that the ban on. 22 pistols can be introduced well before the end of the year.
No system of controls, however tough, can guarantee that there will never again be another Dunblane or Hungerford. There will always be a way for the desperate, the cunning and the wicked to murder and maim their fellow men and women. A responsible Government must do all that they can to mitigate the risks and to set a legal framework that gives the maximum possible protection to the innocent. The 1997 Act, introduced by the previous Government and passed by the previous Parliament, did, I accept, go a long way in improving firearms controls in this country. However, as I said at the time, that Act did not go far enough. Its fundamental flaw was that, illogically and dangerously, it allowed 40,000 handguns to remain available for use. I believe that it is now the duty of the House to close that loophole and institute a total ban once and for all.
I recognise, as I always have recognised, that many law-abiding shooters will be inconvenienced or worse, and I regret that. But I am in no doubt about where the balance should be struck between the right to practise a sport and the right to life—especially the right to life of a child. By banning all handguns, this short Bill will contribute greatly to public safety. It will meet the legitimate demands made to the House by many people since the events of Dunblane. To deny the public the protection that the Bill offers would be an abdication of our responsibility. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It relates to the good reputation of the House—which has suffered in the recent past—which I hold dear, which I believe you hold dear and which I am sure all hon. Members regard as of immense importance.
Rumours are circulating that an internal Labour party inquiry into the actions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) has now been completed. In the interests of the good reputation of the House, should not the details of the findings of that inquiry be made available to hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Rumours of that sort are not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not time that the good name of the House was protected by the Government setting up the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? Why have not the Government done so, and will they now act?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That matter is being dealt with elsewhere. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill since the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has dealt comprehensively with the problems identified by Lord Cullen; believes that there is no justification for a total ban on all handguns including those of. 22 calibre which would eliminate all legitimate


target shooting; and calls on the Government to delay this intemperate Bill until the Firearms (Amendment) Act has been fully implemented and a proper assessment made of its impact.'
The proposals in the Bill are unnecessary, unfair and expensive. We were all horrified by the tragedy at Dunblane in March 1996. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which was the previous Government's response to that dreadful event, received Royal Assent just three months ago. That Act banned all handguns from the home, it outlawed higher-calibre handguns of the type used by Thomas Hamilton and it ensured that lower-calibre handguns could be kept and used only in secure gun clubs. The 1997 Act would take at least 160,000 handguns-80 per cent. of all those held legally in England and Wales—out of circulation.
The Home Secretary gave the impression that the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association spoke for all organs of the police. As the Association of Chief Police Officers explained:
The ban on high calibre handguns and the tightening up of firearms controls generally"—
in the previous Government's legislation—
will provide a significant improvement in public protection. ACPO's measured view suggested retaining a strictly controlled ability for handgun competitions, limited to. 22 weapons, and we very much support both that proposal and the proposed requirements for comprehensive security measures over weapons stored at gun clubs.
So the Association of Chief Police Officers supported not the legislation before the House today but the legislation put before Parliament by the previous Government and passed by the last Parliament. That legislation provides the public with the protection that they need and deserve. It gives this country some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, but allows pistol shooting with low-calibre handguns to continue in secure conditions. The Act has not yet been implemented. Only the night before last, we were debating the compensation arrangements that would apply to those unable to shoot pistols as a consequence of its provisions.
What, therefore, is the justification for introducing the current proposals with such unseemly haste? Why not wait at least until the effect of the 1997 Act can be assessed? Why are the Government so hell bent on denying shooters, including those who take part in Olympic competitions, any opportunity to pursue and enjoy their sport? After all, it is not as though the Labour party has a long-standing commitment to abolishing all pistol shooting. As recently as 24 September last year, the Minister without Portfolio wrote in a letter to one of his constituents:
There has unfortunately been some misrepresentation of Labour's position on the ownership of handguns. We support a ban on the holding of handguns in residential property. People such as yourself will still be able to own handguns but they must be kept safely under lock and key at properly run centres.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), said:
We do think that handguns should be limited to the Olympic standard of. 22 calibre and we do think that there is an argument for handguns to be kept in secure storage under supervision at clubs.
That was, perhaps predictably, in an article in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine of 3 October 1996.
Both those observations represented a rare outbreak of common sense on the part of the hon. Gentlemen concerned. I suppose that we should not be surprised that

it did not last long. The Labour party turned its back on that commonsense approach at its party conference last year, when both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary committed Labour to a total ban on handguns, well before the publication of Lord Cullen's report.
When we introduced our proposals based on, although not precisely following, the views expressed by Lord Cullen in his report, Labour Members opposed them on the basis that they did not go far enough. Clearly, that is the basis of the present legislation. However, where is the justification for it? Where is the compelling need that must always be present if the state is to justify intervention in the otherwise lawful habits of law-abiding citizens? It cannot possibly be said that the 1997 legislation has not worked—it has not yet been tried. In this, as in so many other issues, the new Government demonstrate an arrogance and contempt for the rights of minorities, which will in due course prove their undoing.
The Conservative party believes that the principle of individual liberty that lies at the root of our democracy should compel any Government to take fully into account the views of minorities and minority interests. We contend that there is no compelling justification for the Bill, which is why we shall oppose it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Does not the shadow Minister wish that he had gone further with the measure that was presented to us in the previous Parliament? He said that the previous Government did not act in conformity with Lord Cullen, whose first recommendation was dismantling. If that had been adopted, it could have been applied to. 22s, and the two vastly opposed positions that now exist in the House might have been avoided.

Mr. Howard: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons that he knows well. We debated at great length the pros and cons of dismantling during the passage of the previous legislation. The hon. Gentleman had one view on that, and I had another. It would not do anyone any good if we went over that ground again.
I remind the House of the nature of the constraints introduced by the 1997 Act on the shooting of. 22 pistols—the only pistol that the law would still permit. Under the Act, those pistols could be used only in gun clubs that demonstrated that they met strict security criteria and that could satisfy the police that their premises had adequate security and that appropriate procedures were put in place to avoid any unauthorised removal of firearms from the premises.
Pistols could be moved from the club only if they needed to be repaired or if the owner were competing in a national target shooting competition at a different club, but, before the gun could be moved, a permit would be required from the police, and the gun would have to be carried by a third party whom the police were satisfied was a fit and proper person to discharge that responsibility.
The Act certainly does not permit unrestricted use of. 22 calibre pistols, but it does allow their limited use, so that those who have enjoyed pistol shooting for many years can still do so. Target shooting has a long tradition in Britain. It is an Olympic competition and has been since the 1870s. A total ban would kill off a sport in which Britain does so well. In the 1995 Commonwealth games,


for example, this country won four gold medals in. 22 events. At the 1996 Paralympics in Atlanta, disabled shooters won a gold and a silver medal. Many hundreds of law-abiding people would lose their sport, even though there is no real reason to suppose that the public would be protected more effectively than they would be by the 1997 Act.
For some, target shooting is more than just a sport. I give one example. The British Paraplegic Shooting Association stated that disabled people have found competitive target shooting extremely useful as
a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport. This provides them with a better quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world.
What is the Government's justification for this draconian measure? As I said, there is no real reason to suppose that the proposals will increase public safety. Indeed, depriving pistol shooters of any legitimate opportunity for exercising their sport leads to the real danger that some of them might be tempted to exercise that sport outside the law, in circumstances where the risk to the public might inevitably be greater. The force of that point, which I have repeatedly made, was explicitly recognised by the Home Secretary in a discussion with me which took place on Radio 4 last November, which he acknowledged in his speech a few moments ago.
That draconian measure might actually lead to an increase in the risk to the public, and not a decrease, as we would all wish.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, as the Opposition keep saying, that there are folk who will be driven underground and will take part in illegal activities with guns. Surely he is not encouraging folk to do that, once the House has taken a decision on. 22 guns and high-calibre weapons. Let us remember why the debate came about: because of the tragic circumstances of Dunblane. People can be killed just as well by. 22 guns. That is what the debate is about. I am surprised that the Opposition keep referring to folk going underground and acting illegally. We determine the law here. We shall give them 10 years in gaol if they are caught.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that assertion of a proposition does not help to establish whether or not it is well founded. Of course no member of the Opposition is encouraging anyone to use pistols in a way that is prohibited by law. We are highlighting the danger that that might happen and, indeed, the Home Secretary acknowledged that it was a point with some force to it, which had to be weighed in the balance. Throughout history, that danger has often followed total prohibition. We should always take account of it and weigh it in the balance. It does not always carry the day, but we suggest that the potential consequences of the legislation should be taken seriously. For that and the other reasons that I have identified, we regard the legislation as unnecessary and unfair.
It is also expensive. One would not begrudge the money if the legislation meant increased protection for the public. However, as I have explained, there is no basis for that assertion. The Government have estimated that

compensation would be likely to run to more than £30 million for weapons and their accessories. Where do the Government intend to find that money? The Home Secretary said that it will come from within existing Home Office budgets. What does that mean? Does it mean that expenditure on closed circuit television or on the police will be sacrificed in order to compensate law-abiding owners of lower-calibre handguns?
The Government might like to consider the following facts. The sum of £30 million could pay for the installation of several thousand closed circuit television cameras up and down the country. It also represents half the funding that police forces such as Wiltshire and Gloucestershire received in this financial year. It must surely be better to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on more closed circuit television cameras or on the police than on compensation for law-abiding. 22 calibre handgun owners.
Furthermore, there is good reason to suggest that the estimates in the financial memorandum to the Bill do not tell the whole story. During the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill earlier this year, we decided against compensating gun clubs for the impact of a ban on high-calibre handguns. An important justification for that view was the fact that gun club members could continue to shoot. 22 and lower-calibre pistols. A total ban on handguns would force many clubs—especially those whose members fire only handguns—to close. Does that not alter the previous position on compensation? Have the Government considered compensating clubs that will be forced to close as a direct result of the Bill?
When I put those questions to the Home Secretary, he said that he would re-examine the matter if the Bill departed in any way from the principles that informed our approach to the previous legislation. The argument is not that the Government are departing from those principles, but that the application of those principles will lead to different consequences as a result of the total ban on pistol shooting that this legislation provides. We need answers to those questions and I hope that the Minister of State will address them in his winding-up speech.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made some well-founded comments about the Bill. However, he must recognise that some clubs were forced to contemplate closure under the previous legislation because they could not afford to implement costly security measures. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused those clubs' bid for compensation on that account.

Mr. Howard: I acknowledge that fact, but the current considerations are different. We debated that subject at great length during consideration of the previous legislation. At the time, I pointed to many precedents when the imposition of more stringent requirements under health and safety and similar legislation did not involve compensation. That proposition is entirely different from the one that I am putting now. Gun clubs will have to close as a consequence not of extra security requirements but of the fact that pistol shooting will no longer be permitted at all. That is an entirely different point and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response at the end of the day.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has put his finger exactly on the point. I have been told


of one club that has contracted to spend nearly £16,000 on security equipment in order to meet the requirements of the existing Act. Its owners will face bankruptcy if the legislation goes ahead and no compensation is paid.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point which deserves a serious response—it certainly does not deserve to be met with the hilarity that we observed on the Government Front Bench a moment ago.
The Opposition want to see firm gun controls in place. Like the Government, we are committed to ensuring that gun controls are rigorous and protect the public. Throughout our time in government, the Conservatives tightened gun controls when we found it necessary to do so, following due consideration. As a result, Britain has some of the world's toughest controls on the private possession of guns.
In 1982, we recognised the necessity of making it more difficult to possess imitation firearms that could be readily converted into working weapons. We changed the law so that the same tight licensing controls established by the Firearms Act 1968 applied to the imitation and to other dangerous firearms. In 1988, following the Hungerford tragedy in August 1987, we strengthened gun controls further. As a result, many of the most dangerous weapons—such as self-loading rifles and short-barrelled semi-automatic shotguns—were banned. We also strengthened controls on shotguns and on the safe keeping of all legally held firearms. Following the Dunblane tragedy in March last year and the completion of Lord Cullen's inquiry, we took the further action that is contained in the 1997 legislation.
The need to protect the public should be the main priority of any Home Secretary—it certainly was mine. Protecting the public from gun-related crime was a priority of the last Government. We took firm action not only to ensure that we had some of the toughest gun controls in the world, but to deal with the criminal misuse of illegally held firearms. For example, in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, we increased the maximum penalty for taking a gun to a crime from 14 years to life imprisonment. The Labour Opposition of the day opposed us virulently. The then shadow Home Secretary, now Lord Hattersley, described the provision as squalid and disreputable, and the present Prime Minister and Home Secretary voted against it.
It should be a cardinal principle of government that action taken to interfere with the liberty of the individual must be shown to have compelling justification. Clearly, there will frequently be room for argument as to whether such compelling justification exists. This legislation interferes with the liberty of the individual and no compelling justification for it has been demonstrated—indeed, none exists. The Bill is a prime example of the new Government's weakness for gesture politics. It is unnecessary and unfair, and that is why we shall oppose it.

Mrs. Anne McGuire: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak so soon after making my maiden speech. As the parliamentary representative of the Stirling constituency and the town of Dunblane, I want to identify some of the legitimate opportunities of my constituents that were infringed on 13 March 1996. I wish

to put the debate in some context, because I believe that it is a continuation of the unfinished debate from earlier this year.
Like many hon. Members, I wish I were not discussing this issue today. However, I think that we should remember exactly why we are doing so. Thomas Hamilton entered a primary school in Dunblane with four high-calibre guns and 473 bullets. He fired 106 shots, killing 16 children and their teacher and injuring 15 others. Only eight years before, a similar incident had taken place in the town of Hungerford. We must never forget the context of this debate.
We have been criticised for introducing an emotional element to the gun debate, but I remind hon. Members that emotion differentiates us from other species. We should never forget the strength of the human spirit. Time is a great healer, and it is sometimes easier to put the facts from our minds. However, I want hon. Members to reflect for a few moments on where they were on 13 March 1996. I want them to remember how that day developed and the way they felt.
At first, it seemed as though only one child—think about that—had been killed. However, the numbers soon increased and there was incredulity at how many children had been killed. We then witnessed the despair of parents, families and the whole community. I observed the House's reaction from outside and I was impressed by the way in which it empathised with the people of Dunblane on that day.
Since then, there have been many developments. For example, there was the Snowdrop petition, containing 750,000 signatures. It reflected the public opinion of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke. The Cullen inquiry took place and many of the Dunblane parents listened to the evidence that was presented to it. A momentum was created and hope increased, but we went only part of the way.
The previous Government's Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 certainly tightened regulations and imposed restrictions, but it left a lethal loophole. We know that. 22 calibre guns are still in circulation under current legislation and it has been amply illustrated that these guns are not toys. The Police Federation's evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs confirmed that. The small-calibre single-shot handgun is as lethal as a larger-calibre gun. The loophole could still be exploited and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the British Shooting Sports Council highlighted that. The 1997 Act presented us with restrictions, but, at the same time, it put the pursuit of a minority who are involved in a sport above the protection of the public and their need and demand for public safety.
Labour's case in opposition was always that the House should establish a positive case for the possession of handguns. Two principal arguments are constantly advanced in trying to make that case. First, it is said that it is the individual, not the gun. Undoubtedly, Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan were evil and wicked people. They do not reflect honest, law-abiding citizens who shoot. We cannot legislate, however, for what an individual does with a gun. Lord Cullen identified that fact himself when he said that it is insufficient protection for the public merely to tackle the individual rather than the gun.
Secondly, it is often argued that target shooting is an international sport. I do not know whether I am the only Member of this place who is appalled that we are setting a balance of four gold Olympic medals against the lives of children and adults in Hungerford and Dunblane.
We are challenged with the statement that we are discriminating against those who wish to shoot. I recognise the dedication of sports people and—

Mr. Howard: If the balance being struck was as the hon. Lady described, she would be entirely right. Would she not accept, however, that the first thing that must be established is that this proposed legislation will increase the protection of the public? In the absence of any compelling evidence that it will, it is legitimate to examine the other consequences of the Bill if it is enacted. That is the point.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that no intervention is made during a maiden speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is not making a maiden speech.

Mr. Cook: I apologise.

Mrs. McGuire: I thought that I made that clear at the beginning of my remarks.
I take up the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Home Secretary. I said at the beginning of my speech that today's debate was an extension of the one that took place earlier this year when the previous Government introduced a bad piece of legislation. I hope that tonight we shall see a real conclusion to the debate on guns and not the half-baked one that we had earlier in the year.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I was a Member of this place when, earlier in the year, it discussed the possession of handguns. I hoped that the Select Committee on Home Affairs would be able to give some guidance to the House. I remember the shock and horror following publication of the Select Committee report—it was forced through by Conservative Members—that opposed a total ban on handguns. I remember how that impacted on the people in Dundee whom I represent. Over the following six or seven weeks, a petition was organised in Dundee calling for a total ban on handguns to be introduced by the then Parliament. Over a short period, 6,000 people signed that petition. It was presented to my hon. Friend's predecessor, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, who did not even bother to reply. That illustrates the real reason why we got it wrong earlier. The then Government just did not care. They did not listen.

Mrs. McGuire: I agree with my hon. Friend. I suggest that many Conservative Members are entirely out of touch with the aspirations and wishes of ordinary people, which were reflected by my hon. Friend's constituents.
I recognise the wish of sports people to compete. I recognise also that they have rights in a democratic society. I assert, however, that their rights cannot and

should not be put above the rights of others. I regret that their liberties will be infringed, but not as much as I regret the deaths of 16 children and their teacher in Dunblane on 13 March.
Life choices are still in front of the sports people who will have to give up pistol shooting. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, they can take up other shooting disciplines. They can take up hurdling, for example. They can do all sorts of other things and win gold medals for us in sports where those medals have not been won before. There are no choices left for the children who were killed in Dunblane or for the people killed in Hungerford.
One of the most moving comments that I heard was made by the mother of Mhairi Macbeth on the "Panorama" programme. She said that the tragedy was that she could not see the end of her child's story. I hope that today we can draw an end to the stories of those children who were killed.
We can be criticised for having an emotional response to what has happened. It is, however, an emotional issue when young people are shot down. Our emotional response is linked to a logical response, and that is to remove all handguns from our society.
Events, no matter how tragic, can often be used as a springboard to create a better world. That is our opportunity today, an opportunity which was missed earlier. Nothing can bring back the dead children and adults of Dunblane and Hungerford, but, by moving to extend the handgun ban, we can keep faith with them, with their families and with communities across Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole who signed the Snowdrop petition and other petitions.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the shadow Home Secretary, said that we legislate when it is necessary to do so. That is the tragedy that we face, for we have legislated only when it was necessary to do so. I hope that tonight we shall legislate because we want to do something positive arising from two terrible tragedies.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The House will recognise that we have heard an utterly sincere speech from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who represents Dunblane, which was devastated by the shooting tragedy. The hon. Lady and the Home Secretary have both recognised and sympathised with the shooters whose rights we shall take away. Both have recognised also that there must be a principle on which we base our approach. The principle has to be that it is necessary in the public interest, in this instance for the enhancement of public safety, to make the change that is set out in the Bill and that the Bill requires.
I listened most carefully to the Home Secretary's speech and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for seeking to intervene a second time. I wished only to highlight the point I am about to make. He did not really respond to the question whether the total banning of handguns, including the lighter. 22 handguns, is necessary for public safety and whether it will significantly enhance public safety. I do not believe that that case has been made out.
The House recognises—the Home Secretary acknowledged this—that, even if we were to ban every gun in this country, including shotguns and rifles, and


even if we were to ban kitchen knives, we could not guarantee that the single-minded loner would never create an atrocity of the sort that we saw at Dunblane. It is not necessary to labour the point unduly, but it is one worth making. A gun does not have to feature in an atrocity. Poisons, although properly restricted, are obtainable; they are necessary, for example, in agriculture. An atrocity could occur through their use. As we know, tragically, from terrorism, it would be all to easy with the use of fertilisers, and household substances as simple as sugar, to destroy just as many lives in a moment of evil-minded atrocity. The same would be true—indeed, we very nearly saw it—of a machete. When dealing with small children, it is all too easy to kill.
The question that the House must address—I was deeply saddened that the Prime Minister allowed it to be raised in such a simplistic way at the end of Prime Minister's questions—is whether this measure is necessary and proportionate—

Mrs. McGuire: Yes.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Lady says yes, but please address the issues.
Is the Bill really necessary and proportionate to protect the citizens of this country? I believe—I do not criticise the sincerity of any hon. Member—that the Bill is, understandably, an emotional response, which still remains following the horrific tragedy of Dunblane; but that does not make the case. The Prime Minister himself has said that he believes that the House has a moral responsibility to pass the Bill and that he has a personal belief, but neither he nor the Home Secretary has really addressed and made out the positive reasons for the ban.
One can become rather saddened in the House sometimes when there is a mood such as this. I am grateful to the hon. Members on the Government Benches who are here to take part in the debate, but most hon. Members will come and vote on a free vote not having heard the arguments. The very fact that the Government thought it right to make this a free vote points up the principle that I am highlighting. If the Government really believed that this measure is necessary and proportionate in the public interest, they would make it a Government measure. They would not simply leave it to a free vote, because—the Home Secretary is chatting to his hon. Friend, but he is serious minded about this—the Government say that they recognise that they have a duty to protect the rights of minorities. Unless the Government can show that passing this measure will significantly enhance the safety of the people of this country, they should not encourage their supporters and should not seek to persuade the House to pass this measure through a Government Bill. What happens on private Members' Bills is an entirely different matter.
I shall conclude by making one positive point and then give a summary. There is a very positive reason for not banning. 22 pistols used by club members for target shooting. Properly monitored clubs are close-knit communities of highly responsible people. Every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate will probably recognise that. Such clubs exist in my constituency.
There are also small businesses—I know of one, to which I go from time to time because I shoot with a shotgun—that run pistol shooting in a highly responsible

way. Those bodies monitor their members far more effectively than the police could ever be expected to do and provide a positive defence against oddballs such as Ryan and Hamilton—who were very odd indeed. Those bodies would be far more likely to spot such people and, if necessary, report them, rather than leaving it to an unfortunate police officer—I have the greatest sympathy with the police involved here—and asking the officer to deal with it on paper; and they would do that, not least because if any member of their club were to behave irresponsibly, he would endanger the licence of the club itself.
In summary, therefore, this is what the House is considering. Here we have a popular sport, an Olympic sport, a Commonwealth games sport, enjoyed and participated in by people who are recognised to be highly responsible. There is no real case that these comparatively light pistols are exceptionally dangerous or that they are any more dangerous than the other implements and substances that I mentioned. The use of such pistols by club members is closely licensed and monitored and is demonstrably responsible. It is not necessary in the public interest to ban them. There was indeed overwhelming political feeling following Dunblane, which led to the 1997 Act which introduced a regime that is already more draconian in its controls and more stringent than those that exist almost anywhere else in the world. Nothing further will be gained in public security by a complete ban. As is now widely recognised, we in Parliament have, in these circumstances, a duty to protect the liberties of our constituents and the rights of minorities.
I ask the House in all sincerity at the very least to suspend judgment, to give the 1997 Act a chance to succeed, and not, on careful reflection, to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight.

Mr. Frank Cook: I have in my hand some correspondence to a constituent from a Member of the House who knows of my intention to refer to it and who sits on the Opposition Benches. It might be an appropriate starting point for our discussions tonight, which I am hoping will be sensible and sober and will have a bit of logic about them, which has been in short supply in the past.
The letter, which is dated 17 February, says:
There is, to be honest, little that I can now do to prevent this legislation being enacted, but I am anxious to ensure that your own views are noted at the highest possible level. To that end I think that the best thing that I can do at this stage is to write to the Prime Minister … to take up with him the important points which you raise.
A handwritten postscript says:
P.S. I was saddened to learn that you will not be supporting me in the General Election. I am a Conservative but have reflected in my vote and my contacts with Ministers the view that we share on this issue. It seems strange to me that I should be "punished" for so doing!
The constituent replied:
Let me stress please that I do appreciate
what you have done.
Further, I fully agree that it is unfair that you should be 'punished' for the actions of others with whom you do not agree.
However, you must forgive me if I say that I feel great empathy with you. I too, along with thousands of others involved in shooting


are being punished in a very real sense for the actions of one lunatic and the failings of one senior policeman. We too think such retribution very unfair".
We feel
totally betrayed by this spiteful and vengeful legislation. To be so punished without adequate compensation is iniquitous.
I shall make plain my interest in this legislation. I am a qualified schoolteacher; I taught for many years. I am a grandfather. I have seven grandchildren and one adopted grandchild. I am also a trustee and director of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. Lucy Faithfull—Baroness Faithfull—formed a foundation, with my help and that of a number of others, to care for children's welfare and to counter child abuse of a sexual and physical kind, a matter that is close to my heart. Lucy died the day that Dunblane happened. Some say that she had been called early to greet the children at the gates of heaven. That is a terribly emotional statement, but there might be some truth in it.
I have become involved in this because of media focus on the fact that I also happen to be, for my sins, honorary pistol captain of the Palace of Westminster Rifle Club. I am not a shooter. With a rifle, I am a little above average. With a pistol or revolver—I do not like the term handgun, as it is an American expression—I am moderately safe. Notice that I say "safe", because one of the things about gun clubs is that they train people to handle firearms safely: not to point them, whether loaded or not, at other people. They must conform to range discipline. They must obey the qualified range officer. They must undergo a period of probation and be subject to approval by qualified club officers.
By reason of my being honorary pistol captain—incidentally I have never owned or wanted to own a firearm and I have never sought a firearms certificate—the media concentrated their attention on me.
Another of my qualifications is that I acted as Opposition Whip on what I choose to call the Hungerford Bill. I remember the times and the arguments that we had on that Bill. I see that other Members who took part in those proceedings with me are present and they will remember them just as clearly. We appealed to the Government of the day to listen to a range of anomalies related to firearms legislation generally. The strange thing about the Hungerford Bill was that it did not touch the subject of handguns—there, I have used the term. More than half the killings at Hungerford were conducted with a 9 mm Beretta automatic. That Bill never touched 9 mm Berettas.
Those shortfalls were pointed out to the Government of the day. The Bill was guillotined by the Government and 67 clauses were not debated, not because of the Labour opposition but because of the opposition of Conservative Members. There were objections and, by one means or another, an arrangement was made that if we could not debate those clauses we would express our opinion by going through the Division Lobby. That evening, 18 Opposition Members—I was one of them—kept 140 Conservative Members in the House until about 9 o'clock the next morning.
Many of the Members who have been present in the House since 1987 and are now expressing grave concerns about circumstances and incidents that have taken place since, were not here that night. That is how much concern they showed about Hungerford in those days—but not me, and not some of my colleagues, so I want no one to question my qualifications to talk on this topic.
I have every sympathy with the parents of Dunblane, for God's sake. It was a horrendous experience. If I seriously thought for one second that by enacting this legislation we would obviate another incident of that kind, I would have signed the Snowdrop petition months ago. If I thought that that could be achieved by banning handguns, by completely removing guns from Britain, by God, I would be leading the charge to do that. But, frankly, that is not happening.
What is happening is a great diversion of attention away from the serious issues behind the circumstances. The relationship between Thomas Watt Hamilton and the police in central Scotland was a distinctly unhealthy one, and I want to say why. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated today that the guns held by Thomas Watt Hamilton were lawfully held. We know for a fact that Michael Ryan at Hungerford held illegal weapons. The police knew but did not act.
There is incontrovertible evidence, which I will provide to anyone who wishes to hear it, that Thomas Watt Hamilton's first firearms certificate was illegal. The statements on it were incorrect, inaccurate and unchecked by the police. The first purchase of a firearm was illegal, so any renewal and change of weapon was, by definition, illegal, because the renewals are based on the veracity and validity of the first purchase.
We also know that Thomas Watt Hamilton had threatened a woman with a loaded firearm through the open window of his stationary vehicle and that he was admonished by the police. My God, can hon. Members imagine that—admonished? Why on earth was he not dragged in and his certificate and weapons removed? Everyone knew that he was a danger and a liar. There was unforgivable negligence and we must recognise that.
We also know that Sergeant Hughes, the firearms inquiry officer, had made inquiries about Hamilton's character, personality and conduct. He pleaded with his senior officers to authorise the removal of the weapons and certificates and he was ignored—ignored because, he said, the senior police officer was afraid that if he was taken to a court of law on appeal he would not be able to make the case stick. That is a problem for the Scottish Office. It is a problem which the Scottish Office and Scottish police ignored, which resulted in Dunblane.
Now, sadly, there has been a combination of cosmetic electoral competition, which has obfuscated the real issue. The Labour party said, understandably, that it wanted to ban. 38s. The Home Secretary of the day said that the Government would do that. That was an equation. An election was coming up and it was not going to be enough, so we had to go one better and we did, and we have never stopped competing since. That is the wrong way to implement legislation.
The statutory requirements of United Kingdom law with regard to firearms were not applied in Hungerford and have not been applied in Dunblane. The Cullen inquiry was misled on those facts. The evidence is there to be checked. I ask in all seriousness: if the police can fail to such an extent in Hungerford and Dunblane, how can we trust them to implement to the letter the legislation that the House seeks to enact today?
I come now to a document that has been supplied to every hon. Member by the Gun Control Network. I do not know a great deal about the GCN. I understand that one hon. Member is linked with its organisers and I should


like seriously to discuss with that hon. Member some of its activities. However, I want to comment on the document, and some of what I say will relate to points that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made this afternoon.
Point one concerns the logic. It is said that. 22 weapons are well known to be the favoured assassins' gun and are the preferred weapon of many secret services around the world. The Home Secretary made a similar point this afternoon. I invite hon. Members to put themselves in the position of the Jackal going out to do the job. Can anyone imagine him checking the place where the person will be, the time that he will arrive and the point and field of fire, and then saying, "Oh heavens, I can't use this because its illegal"? Can anyone seriously put that forward as being logical? It devalues the case that we are trying to make.
The second point says that shooters and manufacturers seek to exploit loopholes. I have news for the House. The shooters and traders whom I know are the most law-abiding people one could encounter. The Palace of Westminster Rifle Club is the only club in the Palace of Westminster to abide by the law as it exists outside in the country. We can drink here to our hearts' content rather than be thrown out of a pub. We can do virtually what we like, but not on the rifle range. On the rifle range, we do as we are bloody well told and according to the qualified range officer.
There are 4 million illegal guns out there. Anyone can obtain an illegal gun in under 60 minutes and for less than 60 quid. They may not be very accurate or of any use to a target shooter, and they are certainly no good in a gun club, but they are every bit as lethal, and they are obtainable in far less time than it takes to manufacture pistol components and barrels of revolvers. The arguments used against dismantlement are farcical. People can obtain illegal guns and the ammunition to go with them as easy as that. Furthermore, those illegal guns are not registered. If they are found, they cannot be traced back, whereas a legal gun can be.
On security, transport and identification, the document says that there is a real difficulty in distinguishing. 22s from other handguns. The Home Secretary also made that point. He referred to the distinction between. 38s and. 22s, and said that such a distinction would be unenforceable. He did not want to accept it because it would be unenforceable. Please tell me how enforceable this legislation will be, given that there are 4 million illegal weapons on the streets. Sloppy logic is being used. Hon. Members should consider their duty to enact legislation that is enforceable and achievable. We are in danger of failing to do that.

Mr. William Ross: I was on the Committee that considered the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Does he agree that if some of the amendments that were proposed at that time had been accepted, the horrors of Dunblane might have been avoided, because the person concerned might have been identified by the police, who could then have taken action earlier? A man was murdered in Belfast today. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely unlikely that he, like the many hundreds of others who have died in Northern Ireland at the hands of terrorists, was slaughtered with legal weapons? Nor were they shot by. 22s. Terrorists and people out to kill folk use the heaviest

calibre weapons and the most lethal ammunition that they can lay their hands on. Far too much nonsense is being talked in the House on this subject.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he amplifies my points. I fully agree about what might have happened had amendments been accepted at that time. I remind the Home Secretary that, during the previous debate on this issue, I raised nine points related to firearms legislation that could have been included in previous legislation but were not. I was told that they could have been tabled as amendments. Have they been included in this Bill? No, they have not. How serious are we about sorting out the whole business of firearms legislation? If we are to do the job, let us do it properly. My mother used to say to me that if a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. That thought just returned to me.
The document makes the point that Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan both had legal handguns: the Home Secretary called them "lawfully held". That is impossible, and the evidence is quite clear on that. The document says:
The vast majority of the population wish to see them prohibited completely.
I shall try to explain to the House what the population knows about firearms legislation.
A MORI poll was conducted less than a month ago. People were asked whether they knew how to obtain a gun licence. It was a straightforward question: nothing complex. Three per cent. got it right, 39 per cent. got it hopelessly wrong and 58 per cent. had the good sense to say that they had not got a clue. According to that sample of 850 people over 18, 3 per cent. of people have some idea of how to obtain a gun licence.
I ask hon. Members to consider on what basis people make their judgments on these matters. It is our business to inform ourselves and to make ourselves aware of the real position. The fact that a number of hon. Members are not listening to the arguments and have not had any briefings hardly gives us confidence that our decisions will be taken on the basis of illumination and light.
I should like to refer briefly to Monday's debate on compensation. In his winding-up speech, the Minister of State responded to some of my points. He has told me that he will write to me, and I am grateful to him for that. I hope that his letter arrives before Monday's Committee stage, because I may have to raise these issues again.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): It will.

Mr. Cook: Thank you. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On Monday, referring to me, he said:
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of claiming for components of expanding ammunition.
I was talking about both standard and expanding ammunition.
That is not part of our proposal. That was a suggestion from the gun trade that the Home Office undertook to consider. It was not advice that the Home Office gave to the trade. My hon. Friend based his remarks on a misunderstanding of the consultation that has taken place."—[Official Report, 9 June 1997: Vol. 295, c. 918.]
I must inform the Minister of a telephone conversation—I have already given the Home Secretary advance notice


of this additional information. I have a communication from Bill Hulse, sales director of Edgar Brothers, which says:
the following is my clear and exact recollection of part of the conversation which took place between myself and … the Firearms Industry Compensation Group at a meeting with Simon Barrat and Chris Potter at the Home Office on Wednesday 28 May last.
I asked very specifically whether we could claim compensation for the components of an assembled round. Messrs Barrat and Potter conferred then Simon Barrat confirmed that this was the case. There was no implied or stated wording that this issue was to be considered.
As the rest of this and all previous meetings have been both amicable, positive and constructive I can only assume that Messrs Barrat and Potter are mistaken in their recollection. If so, this is one more example of the incomplete and ambiguously worded compensation scheme causing as many problems to the authors and administrators as it does to the victims.
The simple solution would be for another meeting between ourselves, the Home Office and the Minister responsible to clarify and resolve the ambiguity … which it is in everybody's interest to implement effectively.
I once more put the question to the Minister: for heaven's sake, can we not re-examine the schedule, even at this late stage?
Much has been made of police consultation and the clarity of the instructions that they have been given. The Metropolitan police firearms inquiry team phoned me for clarification. I referred them to the Home Office, but they had already spoken to the Home Office and could not get clarification. I then spoke to the Clerk of the House, who told me that Royal Assent was on a certain date, and he thought that it would be simply a matter of time. The Minister was helpful in telling me that the Government want to implement both Acts simultaneously. That is an example of the police's lack of clarity.
I should like to give another example of the police's lack of clarity. I have the transcript of a telephone conversation between the secretary of the Loughton Hall rifle club and an officer of a firearms inquiry team, whom I shall not identify for obvious reasons. It took place at 11 am on 6 June 1997.
Talking to the secretary, the police officer said:
Right, well when the new law for clubs comes in on 1st July it won't be allowed to have any weapons in unoccupied premises".
The secretary asked:
What, not even rifles?",
to which the answer was:
No".
So not only will we require secure gun clubs, we will require them to be occupied. Presumably there will be numerous caretakers.
The Home Secretary has emphasised, not for the first time, that a free vote will take place tonight. I have to say that I hope that that vote will be a good deal freer than the previous vote. We had a free vote a couple of months ago, but two senior members of the shadow Cabinet were shepherding people who had not been party to the debate and had not listened to the arguments into the Lobby of their choice.
I lost my temper at that point, and registered the fact with both those Members, so the news will come as no surprise to anybody in the House. In fact, somebody dashed off to the press, whose representatives promptly got on to me but I refused to speak to them.
In the House of Commons we have not only free votes but free speech, and I shall watch the performance this evening to see whether there really is a free vote. There is a three-line Whip on attendance, and there are all sorts of ways of giving semaphore signals about who wants who to go where. Thank goodness that all the Government positions have already been filled.
I tabled an amendment, but, as it has not been selected, I cannot move it. None the less, I shall speak briefly to it, because I have been informed that two major Commonwealth countries are poised and ready to object to the holding of the Commonwealth games in Manchester in five years' time.
I checked with Manchester, and apparently Manchester is "comfortably confident" that it will still stage the games. I am happy about that. The last thing that I want is to see the Commonwealth games removed from Manchester. That is why I am raising the question.

Mr. Michael: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would be very careful about the words that he uses on that issue. He will have heard the Home Secretary make it absolutely clear how discretion will be used, and what advice he has received on the law. That means that there will be no threat to the Commonwealth games in Manchester. Indeed, as a Member of Parliament representing the north-west, my right hon. Friend is keen to see the games come there. It would not be in the interests of Manchester, of the north-west, or of this country as a whole, for any doubt to be cast on the likelihood of the games coming to Manchester, because there should be no doubt.

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the Minister of State; that is helpful and in line with the comments that he made on Monday, when he mentioned a dispensation. I was grateful then, too. But I must speak openly. If I kept quiet and afterwards something happened, people would say, "You should have spoken out." That would probably make me want to top myself, so I have to put my thoughts to the House in this form.
The Commonwealth games may well come to Manchester, but, in five years' time, if the Bill is enacted, we shall not have qualified and experienced judges able to conduct the proceedings.

Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is making a typically courageous speech. As he is on the subject, would he also like to comment on the impact that he thinks this unfortunate Bill will have on future bids for the Olympics, whether by Manchester or anywhere else in this country?

Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his uncharacteristically complimentary remarks directed at me.

Mr. Michael: You should be worried.

Mr. Cook: I probably shall be later, when the retribution sets in. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) will let me finish the first part of what I was saying first.
We shall not have qualified experienced judges and assessors to stage the competitions, so we shall have to borrow them. No doubt the same would apply to the Olympics.
Can we imagine several countries bidding for the next event and saying, "We shall put so many million pounds into building this stadium, that sports hall and this swimming pool, and we shall have 74 different disciplines," to which we would respond, "We shall do that too, but by the way, we have something extra. We have a dispensation that will allow your competitors to come to our country and participate in a sport that we have made illegal"?
That idea is so preposterous that it is farcical. Other nations would have a field day. As I said, two major Commonwealth countries are waiting, very interested and focused, poised to make representations should we pass the Bill. Now we see the impact of it.
If we do not make provision for target shooters to train, we shall not be able to enter a team anyway. Already today the Home Secretary has shown us, in a blunt riposte to the proposal, despite the fact that it was a serious proposal put by sporting organisations, that there is no concern about that.
With the utmost respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who is not now in her place, it is grossly unfair to try to measure a number of gold medals against a number of children killed.
Let me explain the difference. Albie Fox is a Welsh international shooter in free. 22 pistol. He is ex-Royal Navy and ex-Royal Air Force commission, an instructor on search-and-rescue helicopters, with awards for bravery. He has participated in international shooting events many times, and will continue to do so, because he will go abroad.
The gun that Albie Fox uses is single-shot, and it takes him almost two minutes to load the thing. It is a counterweighted pistol with a long barrel, which he shoots at a piece of paper 50 m away, in which the bull is about the size of the ring that I am making now with my finger and thumb. That man will be denied the opportunity to practise, train and compete at the discipline for which he has won awards.
Jim Fox came to the House this morning for a press conference. He is a gold medal-winning pentathlete who has represented this country at. 22 in four Olympics and 10 world championships. He is a model of respectability, as is every serious member of the shooting confraternity. Notice that I do not use the phrase, "gun culture".
Gun culture is on the television. It is in Moss Side and Vauxhall; it is in Birmingham, Liverpool and now, sadly, in Newcastle too. That is gun culture. The shooting confraternity punches holes in cardboard at a range of 25 m to 50 m.
My party now seems to be backing off on hunting, and easing up on the anti-hunting argument. That is sad, and I am disappointed to see it. I shall fight that, too, by the way. It seems strange that while we are easing off on an activity in which people pursue defenceless creatures across the countryside and allow them to be torn to pieces, we want to forbid people to put holes in pieces of cardboard at a range of 25 m. I do not see the logic in that.
Thomas Hamilton was thrown out of gun clubs. His membership was refused, because he was considered undisciplined and dangerous. If Sergeant Hughes's comments on that subject had been heeded by senior officers, Hamilton would never have been able to commit his crime at Dunblane.
One of the points that I raised the other evening is that we are talking about 160,000 large-calibre weapons, and now about 40,000. 22s. The police arrived at those numbers by counting the weapons covered by firearms certificates so that, as far as individual shooters in this country are concerned, there is a degree of accuracy. The figures take no account of guns in stock at dealers. Guns are not like second-hand cars—they cannot be traded in, trashed up, thrown into a furnace or rejigged. Second-hand guns are held by dealers because someone might legally want them.
It is estimated that about 70,000 to 80,000 large-calibre weapons are held by dealers. They are kept on registers in shop reserves, and are covered by summary certificates. We are talking about 70,000 to 80,000 guns, on top of the 160,000 large-calibre weapons. That will mean a major change in compensation requirements, and a similar situation applies to the 40,000. 22s to which I have referred. The necessary expenditure has been gravely underestimated.
Compensation is due to be paid only for those components, weapons and supplies that were in the owner's possession on or before 16 October 1996. I should not have to remind the House that, since that date, people might have switched from a. 38 to a. 22, thinking that the legislation would allow them to continue shooting. They might have knocked over and damaged a telescope and had to replace it. A change in weapon would require a change in ammunition—all required after 16 October. Will those people be penalised for buying after the set date? What does new Labour intend for this new measure?
I finish by repeating my pleas of the past. I have always said that the law is unenforceable, and I think that it is illogical and unjustified. Shooting in clubs is very much a family sport, and I have heard mothers pleading with me in tears that a ban on shooting would interfere with the routine of their family's activity. If I thought that enacting this legislation would make Jack the Lad stay at home instead of going out and doing a bank robbery or knocking off a post office, I would have signed the Snowdrop petition months ago.

Mr. A. J. Beith: We have heard reminders of the grim and awful event that set in train this series of measures, and of the Cullen inquiry which followed it. I wish to go back to that for a moment.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997—brought in by the previous Government following the Cullen report—introduced a number of good things, for which some of us had been arguing for a long time. There was much more vigorous control of the issuing of licences, which could even have been carried out to some extent under the law as it was. The recommendations of the report and features of the legislation will make that system much better. I voted for the Act on Third Reading—and recommended that my hon. Friends do the same—particularly because I wanted that tightening of the licensing system.
The previous Government then took the decision not to accept Lord Cullen's proposal for the dismantling of handguns, but argued instead for a partial ban, amounting to about 80 per cent. of handguns. We had a free vote on the issue, as we will tonight on the proposed 100 per cent.


ban. Let us remember what the Act has resulted in. When it comes into effect, no handgun can be held at home, and no handgun can be in a club except. 22s and below, and only then in the very few clubs that can meet the tighter restrictions necessary if they want to have handguns at all. The legislation made a number of important changes.
The partial ban itself had very few friends. It was criticised by those who wanted a total ban and by those who believed that a ban was unjustified and lacked a certain internal logic. Those who wanted the ban to be complete—including a significant number of my hon. Friends—can now vote that it should be so, except for the very particular exemptions provided for by the previous legislation for vets and others. The opportunity is here today and I make no criticism of the Government for bringing the opportunity forward.
I shall argue in a moment that I will vote for the reasoned amendment, although there is one word in it with which I do not agree—the claim that it is "intemperate" to bring the Bill forward. It is not intemperate—it is logical. Labour said before the election that it would create the opportunity for a free vote and that is what should happen tonight. I shall give my view in a moment, but it is a matter on which the Liberal Democrats will not have a party line.
Where we do have a party line—because we are in such strong agreement—is on the belief that the new ban further strengthens the case for adequate compensation for those who will suffer as a result. That particularly applies to clubs, and to trustees of clubs who could face crippling personal liabilities because they have entered into loans and mortgages to make the changes that would have been necessary to allow their club to participate in the legal. 22 shooting for which the previous legislation made provision. Severe personal liability could be incurred by club officers and trustees.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) criticised the Government's attitude, in that the Bill makes a significant change and will result in gun clubs having to close because there is no provision for pistol shooting at all. The business compliance cost assessment which accompanies the Bill and which has been issued by the Government states:
Gun clubs which cater solely or mainly for target pistol shooting will probably have to close.
It follows that the financial losses and liabilities that result ought to be a matter for compensation and we will table amendments to the Bill to seek that such compensation should be provided.
When the shadow Home Secretary made that point, I criticised him because there were implications for clubs in his own legislation that he did not accept or follow. Clubs and many businesses involved in this area were bound to suffer from a situation in which only very few clubs would be able to continue any form of handgun or pistol shooting.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made no provision for compensation for them—indeed, he steadfastly refused to countenance any such compensation—yet it was clear that, once the restriction became so severe, many people would say, "I cannot afford to get into. 22 pistol shooting. I will give up

altogether." That was recognised by the previous Government in response to a plea that we made at the time.
We said that, once the restrictions came into force, those people who owned. 22s or smaller weapons would have guns that they could not shoot anywhere near them, because no club was equipped to do so, but would not be entitled to compensation, because the guns were not illegal. The ex gratia scheme was introduced in response to that plea and I welcome it, as a transitional provision, if the Bill is passed.
It was clearly wrong and unreasonable for people to suffer the almost complete loss in the value of something for which they paid a lot of money, because it was effectively unusable throughout much of the country. The same applied to the clubs and the previous Home Secretary should have seen the logic of that and accepted the case for compensation.
I make that point to the present and previous Governments and we shall be tabling amendments to that effect. Later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) will hope to take part and—as an experienced pistol shooter—will seek to make the case for a total ban much more eloquently than I will be able to do. That gives me the opportunity to set out my view, because it is representative of that of some of my hon. Friends.
We were all appalled by Dunblane. Some said afterwards that we owed it to the children to ban all handguns, but legislation on such a matter is not a memorial to the victims of evil or a way of venting our anger at the terrible thing that was done; it is a mechanism which limits the freedom of individuals and must therefore be judged according to whether the restrictions are justified and effective. That is an essential liberal principle. We must make up our minds how far the Bill satisfies that condition.
What will be taken away is the opportunity to engage in legitimate. 22 target shooting as a sport, not only nationally but internationally, because British competitors will not he able to train unless the Home Secretary, as I urged, uses the dispensation more widely than he intends and makes some provision for authorised British participants. That would never be ideal from a sporting point of view, because entry into the sport would be so restricted, but it would be a small gesture that he could make if he were serious about ensuring that the competitions can take place in the Manchester Commonwealth games.
Britain is successful in both Olympic and Commonwealth games shooting and shooting by disabled people, about which hon. Members will have received representations. There is a strong feeling among the disabled people who use pistol shooting as a sport that the ban is a severe deprivation for them.
My view is that the legislation will not stop the determined criminal or psychopath, who can use other weapons or obtain handguns from criminal sources perfectly easily. My personal conclusion is that a total prohibition of. 22 pistols kept in clubs would not make a significant contribution to public safety such as would justify or necessitate the severe limitations imposed on innocent citizens who want to pursue a perfectly legitimate sporting activity under strict regulation.

Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the impact of the proposals on disabled sport. Will he


confirm that powerful representations have been made to me and to many other hon. Members by the British paraplegic pistol shooters, who have been conspicuously successful at recent Paralympics?

Mr. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned them, because their representations are among those that I had in mind when I mentioned disabled shooters. The House should give consideration to that group of people.
I hope that all hon. Members will apply the test of whether they can be convinced that the restrictions in the Bill on those who legitimately engage in. 22 pistol shooting are justified and necessary and will greatly increase public safety. My judgment is that they will not.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Before proceeding to the heart of this fundamental debate, I must, in my maiden speech, tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about my wonderful constituency and my predecessors. I must also express my gratitude and acknowledge some debts.
I am privileged and proud to be here. I am the first Member of Parliament in my family; the first in the new constituency of Lancaster and Wyre; the first Labour Member ever in one part of my constituency; and only the second in the other. I am grateful to the people of what, from my accent, is clearly my adopted constituency, for returning me. I am determined to repay their faith, hope and trust with immense hard work. I aim to enable the voices of people from Lancaster and Wyre to be heard here and I aim to help to bring home to them the benefits of what I am confident will be a great reforming Government.
My constituency covers large parts of two districts, with two health authorities, and I have two immediate predecessors. Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman represented Lancaster for 27 years, and retired undefeated and unbowed at the Dissolution of Parliament this year. She was a remarkable Member of Parliament, with a strong following at home. She is a person of courage and principle. We disagreed on almost everything—on whether the sun was shining—but no one could doubt her tenacity, sincerity, strongly held commitment and work over those 27 years. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing her a long, healthy and happy retirement.
Lancaster joined with Wyre to make my constituency. Keith Mans was Member of Parliament for Wyre for 10 years, from 1987. He was my opponent at the general election. Again, there were many areas of disagreement between us, but I found him a decent, honourable and able man. Our personal relations were invariably cordial, and usually friendly. He served his constituency well and even though he has promised me that he will be back, I wish him and his family well in all that the future holds for them. I am sure that the House will echo that.
I have worked hard to get here. I have had such a feeling for Lancaster that I have thought for a long time that I would eventually arrive here. Perhaps uniquely on this occasion, I believe that I can say without fear of interruption that Lancaster is the finest historic city in the land. The Queen, after all, is the Duke of Lancaster, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
"Time-honoured Lancaster", in Shakespeare's words, has a Roman fort and a royal castle; it is the county town of the old county of Lancashire. Why should we not rise again as the administrative centre of regional government? We are significant. We have meaning. We stretch back over millennia. We have a moral tradition. We have a Roman Catholic cathedral, and an ancient priory church. We have a Quaker tradition. Our churches are ecumenical and alive.
We have a world-class university and a revered college of education. We have the oldest functioning prison in Europe and a model youth custody centre. It is unfortunate that the shadow Home Secretary is no longer here; Lancaster people could tell him how far prison works.
Lancaster is a beautiful city in lovely surroundings, a city of culture where music, literature, theatre, dance and the visual arts combine with our relatively small and compact size to make Lancaster the capital of cultural participation, offering more opportunities per head than anywhere else in the land.
Laurence Binyon—appropriately for this debate, the poet of remembrance—comes from my adopted city. I come from the east coast, from Northumberland, and I have loved Lancaster since the day that I arrived there. Seventeen years on, with one daughter born there and 10 years of hard work throughout Lancaster and Wyre, I love it all.
I love the market town of Garstang; the larger town of Poulton-Le-Fylde; Thornton; Preesall; Knott End; and the villages of Stalmine, Calder Vale, Cockerham, Winmarleigh, Pilling, Caton, Catterall, Brookhouse, Hambleton, Quernmore, Glasson Dock, Scorton, Forton, Bilsborrow and Barton—lovely names that roll off the tongue. We have lovely names and fine countryside: wild fells and river valleys, wild places, wildlife and cityscapes, rich farmland, marshes and the sea. My constituents include fine people who have lived there all their lives and those who have come to enjoy and benefit from the place. Every autumn, thousands of young people, full of creativity and vitality, come to learn there. It is exciting, it is fun, and the whole constituency is great.
Of course, we have problems galore. We have an animal rendering plant which blights the future and which must go. Our young people need jobs, and our pensioners need security and good care. Those fine rural towns and villages must provide affordable homes. We need heavy goods off the roads and on to rail. We need a good bus service restored.
We have one of the largest concentrations of park home residents in the country and the law needs to be reformed to give them security and tranquillity in their quiet years. Our excellent schools can be improved, our quality health service can develop and grow, and our environment needs to be sustained. The people must be listened to, their experience valued, their expertise utilised and their views solidly reflected in debate, including the debate today.
The greatest joy of my life has been to see our children grow up. They are 19 and 16 now. I have worked with families and children for more than 15 years and I can think of nothing more heinous, wicked or evil than the murder of all those bairns and their teacher in Dunblane. We must never allow that to happen again. We have taken action and banned weapons. We have reformed procedures, strengthened security at schools and increased vigilance. We must be ever vigilant and alert, and we must do all we can.
Yet today, we are tempted to go too far and to miss the point. Like everyone here, I have talked to people about this subject for months and heard differing views. Indeed, I sat in my office this morning and held a phone-in for my constituents. I was there for 19 hours—I am sorry, I mean two hours, it just seemed like 19—and 19 people rang in. As soon as I put the phone down, it rang again.
I have also searched my soul and my conscience on this issue. I do not doubt the obvious sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and everyone who has taken part in the debate. However, I cannot believe that the extreme circumstances that occurred at Dunblane can lead to good law. I profoundly believe that the House of Commons is here to protect the freedom of law-abiding individuals to go about their business and to explore their talents.
Target shooting as a sport is something at which elderly people and people with disabilities can excel. It is an outlet for their skills and they often have few others. I am worried about civil liberties and the quality of our democracy when patently decent people feel that their sport and their livelihoods are being sacrificed and their views ignored to no avail. Those involved in target shooting feel that the Bill will not address the real problems caused by illegal guns in our society.
I hold no brief for shooting. It does not interest me as a sport and I miss by miles at fairgrounds. I am concerned about the increase in illegal guns, in violent crime, in drug-related criminal behaviour and the use of firearms by vicious criminals. We must tackle those problems—I am sure that every hon. Member wants to tackle them—but they have nothing to do with adding further restrictions to the lives of thoroughly decent and utterly law-abiding ordinary people.
We must take time to reflect. The memory of those tragically murdered 16 bairns and their teacher could be better honoured by developing a culture in this country that puts children's rights and needs at the forefront of our concern. We must make some real progress in helping children and their families out of poverty, and in radically improving the lot of children in public care, which is an issue close to my heart. By providing quality services for all children, we could start putting children first in all policy areas. That is an issue for another debate.
It is a tribute to the good grace, sense and wisdom of the Government that a free vote will be held on this issue. It is a fundamental matter of civil liberties and of conscience. I intend to take full advantage of the free vote and, for once, I will not vote with the Government. I cannot vote for the Bill, because I am not convinced that it will provide overwhelming benefits for public safety.

Mr. James Gray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on an eloquent contribution. I look forward to the many contributions that he will make in the four and a half years that he has ahead of him in this place, before my former hon. Friends return to the Government Benches with the rest of my party.
I rise for the first time in a debate with some trepidation, following as I do a long tradition of distinguished Conservative Members of Parliament for

North Wiltshire. My constituency can claim a record for continuity and longevity, because all my three predecessors—stretching back to 1941—are still alive. I challenge other hon. Members to equal that record if they can. David Eccles won a by-election in 1941, when he took over from Captain Cazalet, who was killed piloting General Sikorski in the war. David Eccles served for nearly 20 years and was replaced by one of the great gentlemen of the House, Daniel Awdry, who served from 1962 until he handed the baton to Richard Needham in 1979. Richard made a huge contribution to the nation in the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. His wit and his particular brand of directness will be much missed by the House. I hope that I am able to follow in that worthy tradition—if not as a lookalike, at least as well as I can.
I am honoured and fortunate to have been elected for such a beautiful constituency as North Wiltshire. It represents, in the words of the English prayer book, the "unchanging changelessness" of rural England, and straddles the industrial prosperity of the M4 corridor. The constituency contains the most beautiful villages in England, including Lacock and Castle Combe, and pleasant market towns, including Malmesbury, Chippenham, Corsham and Wootton Bassett. Those four towns house some of the finest businesses in England. The fastest growing business in Europe, I am told, is Dyson, which manufactures bagless vacuum cleaners in Malmesbury. They are first-class.
North Wiltshire is no longer the rural idyll that some hon. Members might imagine. More than half my constituents live in towns. None the less, the whole character of the place derives from the fact that it is in the countryside. Even people who live on modern estates in Chippenham believe that they are countrymen, and their way of life is heavily influenced by the countryside.
Many of us are deeply concerned by two or three aspects of life in the countryside at the moment. Farmers have faced the most desperate 18 months in the history of modern agriculture thanks to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. I very much hope that the Government, who are so proud of their close links and great power in the European Union, will be able to lift the EU beef ban as soon as they can. I have yet to hear any promises or aspirations from the Government on that front, but they must take urgent action to lift the ban.
I very much welcome the announcement that the Government made last week about banning the import of beef from possibly dodgy abattoirs on the continent of Europe. I shall make just two comments on that. The Government might consider bringing that ban forward to today's date on the ground that if they leave it until the end of July, there is a risk that those dodgy abattoirs, as I like to call them, will choose to pour beef into this country in the interim.
The Government might also consider using the excellent vets from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who tour British abattoirs and ensure that our beef is of the highest quality. They might be asked to go to the continent to inspect the abattoirs whence we shall be importing beef. I suspect that imports of beef into the United Kingdom would go down quite considerably and that even huge users such as McDonald's, which I believe is the largest user of beef in this country, might think twice about their determination to import everything that


they use from the continent. Many hon. Members know that British beef is best, and it is high time that McDonald's and others realised the same.
Another threat to an area such as North Wiltshire arises from the possibly controversial activity of field sports. The economy of my constituency would be deeply damaged by any ban on field sports as a whole, but particularly damaged by a fox hunting ban. About £4 billion is contributed to the British economy thanks to field sports, about 50,000 horses are kept purely for the purpose of fox hunting and about 15,500 foxhounds would have to be destroyed if fox hunting were banned—incidentally, vastly greater than the number of foxes that are killed in any one year.
The immediate threat as I understand it from the Labour party's recent comments is to hunting on Ministry of Defence land. That would especially affect my constituency, because Salisbury plain is slightly to the south of it. We have some experience of such a ban there as, five years ago, hunting across the impact area was banned for safety reasons. After only a few years, farmers petitioned the MOD once again to allow hunting on the impact area because their land and poultry were suffering such appalling depredations. That case study would be repeated across the United Kingdom in the event of fox hunting being banned.
My particular concern with today's debate is that the political correctness of extending the stringent Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which my right hon. and learned Friend the former Home Secretary brought in last year, will stretch ultimately to field sports. Before commenting on the Bill, I should declare an interest.
I was brought up in Dunblane, my father was the minister of Dunblane cathedral and my mother was one of the doctors who took part in the counselling in the aftermath of the tragedy. More than perhaps many hon. Members, I was therefore deeply, deeply affected by the tragedy last year. Indeed, my younger brother attended Dunblane primary school.
Despite the fact that I lived in a field sports area all last year, I went to some length to justify the 1997 Act. I came under considerable pressure from the shooting lobby in North Wiltshire, which felt that I was not doing the right thing. I am conscious that, in opposing the Government's Bill, I shall come under equal pressure from my friends and relations who still live in the town of Dunblane. I therefore oppose the Bill intentionally and thoughtfully, while feeling deeply about the issue of Dunblane, simply because I believe that it will go no way at all towards preventing another such incident. I have a horrible feeling that the Bill has a taint of self-righteousness about it, of trying to appear to put something right rather than putting it right.
We made sure during the passage of the previous Government's Bill last year that Dunblane could never again occur. Today's Bill does not achieve that. It merely attempts to demonstrate to the public that the Labour party is as concerned now about the aftermath of Dunblane as we were last year. For that reason I find the Bill—speaking as a Dunblane boy—somewhat distasteful.
As I said, I came under huge pressure from the gun lobby. I bore that pressure and spoke up strongly in favour of the Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend the former Home Secretary. I know that I shall come under some pressure from my friends and relations in Dunblane as a

result of making my comments, but I feel terribly strongly about the right of shooters to take part in Olympic sports, which the Bill would ban. I also feel strongly for people who work in gun factories—many of whom are represented by Labour Members—and who would be fundamentally affected by the Bill. It is for that reason that I have overcome my natural emotional inclination to support the Bill, and I very much hope that Labour Members will join me in the No Lobby.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: It is an honour to make my maiden speech, especially in this important debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on doing likewise. He made an extremely valuable contribution to the debate.
I represent the new constituency of Brigg and Goole. I can genuinely say that it is new, because when the boundary commissioners decided that Humberside should change from nine constituencies to 10, the nine sitting hon. Members all seemed to work out for themselves the boundaries that they wanted and Brigg and Goole was what was left at the end of that process.
I have three predecessors—two of whom are still hon. Members—who represented parts of what we now call Brigg and Goole. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who was present until quite recently, did so for 10 years. Indeed, I believe that this week—perhaps even today—is his 10th anniversary of entering the House. In those 10 years, he has had by any standards an upwardly mobile career, even though it was as a Conservative Member. I am sure that he hopes that that will continue.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has just entered the Chamber, represented the Brigg and Goole area when it used to be known as Glanford and Scunthorpe. He has already been mentioned by the shadow Home Secretary, who referred to an article that he had written in the Shooting Times. I used to work in my hon. Friend's office and was worried for a second about whether I had had anything to do with the article. When the shadow Home Secretary said where the article was published, I knew: "Not me, guv."
The third person who used to represent what we now call Brigg and Goole is the former Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, Michael Brown. Most of his constituency went into that of Cleethorpes; my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac) paid a warm tribute to him in her maiden speech last week. I certainly want to be associated with all those comments.
I fought Michael Brown in the 1992 general election. I found him an extremely able opponent and a principled politician. My respect for him grew enormously during that campaign. Following that, in my days as leader of the local authority in North Lincolnshire, I found him an extremely helpful local Member of Parliament in arranging visits to Ministers and the like. He certainly always did what he thought was in the best interests of the people of Brigg and Cleethorpes, and whatever he chooses to do with life outside Parliament, I for one wish him well. I am sure that other hon. Members would wish to associate themselves with that remark.
My constituency stretches from Goole at its most northern tip all the way down to where Lincolnshire borders with Nottinghamshire. Goole and the surrounding


villages are now in the East Riding of Yorkshire, thanks to the previous Government's local government reorganisation. Of course, that has done nothing to satisfy the locals, who argue passionately that they are really from the West Riding of Yorkshire. As that was not in line with the Government's proposition, they did not get that change. The rest of the constituency lies in north Lincolnshire, leaving me the unenviable task of trying to achieve what the people say Humberside county never achieved: getting the people of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire to live together in one entity.
The port town of Goole and its people are extremely proud. Despite being the largest conurbation by some measure in my constituency, it has a friendly community spirit. I have enjoyed immensely the work that I have done there since I was first selected as candidate for the area. The people have been through difficult times in the recession, but I am glad to say that the town has been like a phoenix rising from the ashes. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that my first official engagement as the Member of Parliament was to open the new steel terminal that has been built by Associated British Ports at the port in Goole. I trust that that is a hopeful sign of things to come.
As I have the ear of the House, I should like to plead for a bypass, which Goole lacks. The old port, known as Old Goole, is landlocked when all the bridges are open, which is a great inconvenience to the local people. A bypass has been built for all but that part of my constituency. Although the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not present, I hope that I can get a copy of Hansard to him, so that he understands that need. I am sure that he already does.
South of Goole is the Isle of Axholme, which mainly consists of flat farming country. In fact, it is reclaimed land and I pay tribute to the many internal drainage boards, whose excellent work ensures that the area remains first-class agricultural land.
All hon. Members claim that they represent a beautiful part of the world, but I truly do represent such an area. It includes the town of Epworth, which is perhaps most famous for being the home of John and Charles Wesley. It was the birthplace of the Methodist faith. The Wesley steps are still in the town centre and the Methodist faith remains extremely strong and important in the area. I am a Methodist and although I do not think that that is why I was elected, I do not think that it hurt either.
East from the Isle of Axholme, one crosses the River Trent to the villages and towns that are north of Scunthorpe and lead up to the Humber. As one might expect, there are many wharves around the Humber, including Flixborough, which, tragically, is probably best known to many hon. Members as the place where the largest peacetime explosion occurred, when the nitro-chemical works blew up on 1 June 1974. That killed 28 local people and injured 36. It is some indication of the strength of that explosion that it destroyed or severely damaged nearly 2,000 houses and 167 local shops. Even today in the village one can see the driveways to houses that were literally blown away by the blast. It remains a sobering reminder of the need for vigilant health and safety work in modern industry.
The Member of Parliament at the time of the explosion was the former Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, John Ellis. Some hon. Members may recall that he served a Bristol constituency in the 1960s and Brigg and Scunthorpe in the 1970s, when he was a Whip in the previous Labour Government. Ironically, he is now my neighbour, which is how I got all those figures about Flixborough.
My constituency takes in many picturesque northern Lincolnshire villages before it finally finishes at Brigg, which is a lovely market town. It is home to a large part of North Lincolnshire council. It was particularly famous last year when Brigg Town football club won the FA vase when it beat Clitheroe 3–0 at Wembley. Those of us who were there will never forget that occasion. It is a beautiful part of the world, which I am privileged to serve.
I particularly wanted to contribute to the debate because I believe in banning handguns. That is not a recent view. In my former life, I was the chairman of Humberside police authority for several years and that experience made me believe that such legislation is necessary. I have had the great honour to visit other countries to look at their police forces and I have also hosted visits from overseas officers. They all say that the one item of our legislation that they would like to introduce, and which we should cherish and strengthen, is the control of handguns. Anyone who has visited America, and I am sure many hon. Members have done so, will understand why police officers believe that.
As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, this is an all-or-nothing matter. The previous 1997 Act was illogical because it banned some but not all handguns. I have spoken to members of my local police force—I am sure that other hon. Members have spoken to their respective forces—and they support their national associations. They would welcome the proposed ban. The shadow Home Secretary said that he was not sure whether the Association of Chief Police Officers was in favour of the ban, but I am sure that even he would accept that if the Police Federation and the Superintendents Association support it, that must account for between 98 and 99 per cent. of all police officers. One should note that the one rank left is that least likely to be out on patrol.
It is simpler for the police to enforce the law if they know that all handguns are illegal. That avoids arguments about the legal status of one calibre weapon as opposed to another. If the law is to be effective, it must be enforceable.
Some firearms will remain legal—for example, shotguns and rifles—but we could learn about improving the safety of those weapons by studying what has happened in Australia. Following the mass shootings at Port Arthur in Tasmania, the authorities have tightened the gun registration procedures. Apart from banning many firearms, the Australian authorities have introduced several levels of registration. The most powerful weapons may be licensed only after rigorous examination of their use and in exceptional circumstances. In fact, they can be kept only for employment purposes. Those different levels of registration cover air rifles and airguns, but they are exempt from registration in this country.
I have spoken to members of the Australian police and I know that they believe that the new ban has made a great improvement to public safety. Hon. Members might


also be interested to know that the Australians, too, have had to decide how compensation should be paid. In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can tell the House that that was achieved through a one-off tax. It was widely supported by the public, who wanted to see such weapons taken off the streets.
Firearms benefit from technological changes. Anyone who has any knowledge of firearms manufacture will know that, following the 1997 Act, manufacturers studied how to manufacture handguns that effectively were still the same as those that the previous Government wanted to ban. They worked on new products that were designed to be one thing but to look like another. Never underestimate the ingenuity of those manufacturers.
The Firearms Consultative Committee was set up under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which was passed after the Hungerford disaster. That committee is in urgent need of reform. It could act as an effective monitor, but not given its current membership. The law states that the membership should be
drawn from those who appear to the Home Secretary to have knowledge and experience of either the possession, use (in particular for sport or competition) or keeping of, or transaction in firearms; or weapon technology; or the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the Firearms Act.
That is a wonderful bit of Sir Humphrey Appleby. It has led to an unbalanced committee. Although it has undertaken some good work, for which I pay it tribute, it is more interested in protecting shooters' rights rather than in protecting the public. In the past, local authorities had just two members on the committee, but the former Home Secretary had them replaced by those from the shooting fraternity. One man, Councillor John Mellor, was a victim of that decision. I pay tribute to him for the work that he did on that committee, to communicate to it the public's concern about firearms. That is not a political point, because Councillor Mellor is a Conservative member of Wolverhampton council. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary decides to retain that committee, I hope that the reinstatement of Councillor Mellor and others might be considered.
The committee has produced seven reports, which I have read. We have heard a lot today about how seriously shooting clubs and pistol associations take the matter of handgun control and legislation relating to it. If so, I am bound to say that that represents a bit of conversion. After all, in 1993, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the National Pistol Association made a submission to the committee in favour of relaxing handgun legislation. One should remember that the legislation in question was not the Bill that we are discussing now nor the 1997 Act, but the 1988 Act. They argued in favour of relaxing handgun legislation to encourage tourism. They stated:
hunting handguns are widely used by shooters in North America and a less restrictive approach might encourage more of them to cross the Atlantic for shooting holidays.
I do not believe that that is a sensible approach to the use of handguns and I am yet to be convinced that those organisations have the public interest at heart.
As well as—I am pleased to say—rejecting that submission, the consultative committee made 160 recommendations in seven reports to the former Government to improve firearms safety, but those

recommendations were largely ignored. In its 1994 report to the House, the committee expressed profound disappointment that parliamentary time had not been found for legislation. That disappointment was reaffirmed in its report to the House in 1995. On 12 February 1996, one month and one day before Dunblane, Lord Marlesford asked Baroness Blatch, then a Home Office Minister, what action was being taken on the consultative committee's recommendations. She replied that primary legislation was needed, but was unable to say when that might happen. The tragedy at Dunblane changed all that.
We have had seven reports, 160 recommendations and eight years of inactivity, followed by an Act that is neither one thing nor the other. It was not, as the shadow Home Secretary said, that the previous Government wanted to tighten firearms control; they wanted to do as little as they thought they could get away with in the face of the public outrage following Dunblane. Having considered the matter carefully, particularly in my former police authority role, I believe that it is time for the House to stop dithering and to stop acting, as the previous Government did, in a half-hearted way. It is time to ban handguns and I urge the House to support the Bill.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on his maiden speech. He said that he was chairman of his police authority and I congratulate him on his many years' service in that role. He will know that, often, what counts is not how good the gun laws are, but how well they are enforced—the Dunblane disaster was an example of that. The hon. Gentleman also applauded the parliamentary record of his next door neighbour, Mr. John Ellis, who was previously the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, a constituency which I have also had the honour to represent.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and I share one further similarity: both our maiden speeches contained references to Mr. John Wesley. He may have been born in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but it was in Bristol that he did most of his work and the Methodism movement was launched.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on his maiden speech. He is almost one of my neighbours. He referred to the distinguished record of one his predecessors, Viscount Eccles. I well recall one of the early debates that we had in my locality on the movement of the county boundary. I do not think that there is anyone in the House who has not suffered from constituency boundary changes in one way or another.
That local debate was about whether the county boundary between Wiltshire and Hampshire should be moved. There was a turnout of 200 people at the meeting which, for a rural area, was considerable. Points were put with tremendous passion and the argument went to and fro. Viscount Eccles stayed fairly silent until the end of the debate, when the arguments seemed to be fairly well balanced and there was obviously going to be a division. At that point he got up and said, "To my mind, it is quite simple. Do you want to stay a Wiltshire moonraker or become a Hampshire hog?" The county boundary stayed precisely where it is and will no doubt remain so for as long as Viscount Eccles is living. He is well, robust and still a local.
I should also like to refer to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). He may have lost Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman as a Member of Parliament, but I have won her as a constituent. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that she is not going to have a peaceful and quiet retirement—someone like her could not retire peacefully.
Dame Elaine is married to my local Member of the European Parliament. Hon. Members who remember her efforts in this House will never have participated in a debate when she has not intervened in some way or another if present, and her interventions have always been audible. It is significant to see her at a meeting with her husband. When he is in authority or when she is attending one of my local meetings where, as a local Member of Parliament, I command a certain amount of respect, the good Dame is silent. The only times in my life when I have seen her silent are when she has been supporting me as a Member of Parliament or her husband as a local Member of the European Parliament.
On behalf of Dame Elaine and Mr. Keith Mans, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the good messages that he has sent them. We were sorry to lose Keith because his contributions in the House, both in defence debates and in any debates involving civil aviation or aerospace, were considerable. He had immense knowledge of the subjects. He was once one of my constituents when I represented a constituency containing part of the New Forest. I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's messages on to Mr. Mans.
Listening to the speeches, I have a slight sense of déjà vu. During debates on what became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, there was hardly a single Back-Bench speech in support of the proposals, yet the Bill was passed. Until we heard the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole I do not think that we had heard any real support for what is being proposed today.
I oppose Second Reading. I support the reasoned amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Home Secretary. Another reasoned amendment on the Order Paper was not selected; it is in my name and that of, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Some 16 hon. Members signed that reasoned amendment, which says broadly the same thing as that tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I am keen to add my support to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions relating to the parliamentary procedures for dealing with the Bill. First, why has the Home Secretary decided to commit the Bill to a Standing Committee of the whole House? When do the Government foresee the Committee stage taking place? There has been some talk of 19 June—it would assist us, particularly in view of the large number of amendments that are likely to be tabled, to have some idea of the date. The alternative procedure proposed by the hon. Member for Stockton, North—a Special Standing Committee to hear evidence from expert witnesses—is preferable. Given the Bill's nature—admittedly, it is a narrow Bill—there is surely a compelling case for subjecting it to expert, specialised and detailed scrutiny before we consider amendments.
The House may be aware that shooting is the fastest-growing participation sport in this country. Some 2 million people shoot using pistol, rifle or shotgun and it is the second largest sport after fishing. That said, there is a remarkable degree of ignorance about involvement in those sports. That is why I think that the Select Committee procedure could well be used to advantage in this case.
The present law, which was amended by the Conservative Government, is now the toughest in the world and that is tough enough in my view—in fact, I think it went rather too far. The 1997 Act banned all high-calibre handguns above. 22 rimfire and also removed handguns from general circulation. It banned all handguns from the home, which is certainly a good thing; it required that. 22 handguns should be kept and used in licensed gun clubs under the strictest security; and it made it a criminal offence to take a. 22 handgun out of a licensed club without a police permit. It also tightened the procedure for issuing firearms certificates and gave the police stronger powers to revoke certificates. That was a welcome measure, because, had those powers existed at the time of Dunblane, the local police authority could have revoked Mr. Thomas Hamilton's licence, thereby saving the lives of many children and their teacher.
Nevertheless, I believe that the 1997 Act went too far. The dismantling recommendations that were proposed in amendments were workable and would have done nothing to endanger the general public. In fact, refusing to accept those dismantling arrangements did nothing further to safeguard the public. When enacted, the 1997 legislation displayed a rather regrettable and unholy alliance between Front Benchers on both sides. It was an example of an knee-jerk reaction to a national tragedy—it was understandable, but such reactions sometimes make bad law. Having established the Cullen inquiry, the Government should have accepted its conclusions and enacted measures accordingly.
The Bill extends the ban to. 22 handguns and I remind the House that, during the Committee stage of what became the 1997 Act, my then hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, proposed an amendment to that effect so that all handguns would be banned. That amendment was narrowly defeated by 25 votes. I have not checked the record, but I believe that, in that Division, several Conservative Members and possibly some Opposition Members voted in favour of the amendment, so it is not true to say that the Whips stopped people voting according to their beliefs, although they may have tried to exert their usual influence. None the less, I still believe that the 1997 Act represented a disgraceful collusion between Front Benchers against Back Benchers who were opposed to the Conservative Government's proposals. On that occasion, we Back Benchers were defending the rights of 57,000 law-abiding citizens who were made scapegoats for the criminal activities of others.
It is important to note the Labour party's evidence to the Cullen inquiry in May 1996, which was presented by the current Secretary of State for Defence and the Home Secretary. Page 5, paragraph 17 of that evidence states:
we recommended that handguns above. 22 inch calibre should certainly be prohibited. We also believe that the strong case for restricting handguns of. 22 calibre and below to those which need to be reloaded after each shot should carefully be examined by the Inquiry.


They did not, therefore, recommend a. 22 ban, but said instead that single-shot. 22 pistols should be accepted. Why have the Labour Government changed their views?
As I said earlier, this is a somewhat narrow Bill, but I want to know whether it is the thin end of the wedge. Labour also made recommendations to Cullen on rifles. Page 5, paragraph 20 states:
we think there should also be a general prohibition on rifles above. 22 inch calibre.
This evening, I want a specific assurance from the Minister that there are no other Bills in draft to extend the ban or to bring air rifles and shotguns within section 1 certification. It is important that the House be told.
The Bill aims to prohibit the general ownership, possession or use of all handguns by civilians and seeks to achieve that by including small-calibre pistols in the list of weapons that are prohibited under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, unless authorised by the Home Secretary. In his report, Lord Cullen said:
I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified.
What are the Government's reasons for disregarding that recommendation?
My next point relates to the important matter that is the subject of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton, North—competition shooting. I should apologise for the fact that I was not present in the Chamber for some of his speech this evening, but what I heard was pretty good stuff and I am sure that the rest was too.
The shooting of. 22 pistols has a legitimate place in the traditions of Olympic competition and it is a sport enjoyed by thousands of law-abiding citizens. We see in the Bill a fundamental contradiction in the Labour party's thinking, because the Labour manifesto says:
A Labour Government will take the lead in extending opportunities for participation in sports; and in identifying sporting excellence and supporting it.
I, too, support that part of the manifesto. It continues:
A Labour Government will also work to bring the Olympics and other major international sporting events to Britain.
Again, I am in agreement—it is extraordinary how much we can agree across the Floor of the House. The contradiction is that, on the one hand, the Labour party claims to support our great sporting traditions, yet, on the other, the Labour Government have now proposed policies that would effectively destroy some of those traditions.
The Home Secretary said that most people would support a total ban. I do not think that he is right. As hon. Members know and as new Members will discover, a Member of Parliament's postbag is a useful litmus test of public opinion and those of us who were in the House during debates on the 1997 Act will know that letters supporting the Conservative Government's proposals outnumbered those expressing the view that the proposals were a diabolical infringement of individual liberties by a ratio of about 10 to one. I will take an intervention from anyone who wishes to correct me or to agree with me on that point.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am grateful for the hardly covered invitation to intervene. I have a file drawer which, without separators or dividers, is full of the correspondence relating

to firearms legislation that I have received since Dunblane. There must be several thousand letters, none of which is a duplicate or cyclostyle, but only three of those letters take issue with my views on firearms legislation. I have a constituency covering 68,000 people, yet only three letters from constituents of mine tell me I am wrong. All the rest agree with me or plead for my support and further participation in opposing the legislation. That is the sort of ratio I can report to the House.

Mr. Colvin: That proves that the hon. Gentleman is a better advocate in presenting his case than I am in presenting mine this evening. People are obviously persuaded by his oratorical skills. The balance of public opinion—those people who are prepared to write to a Member of Parliament—is very much against the proposals in the Bill.
It appears that the Government have forgotten that Britain is to host the Commonwealth games in 2002. We are committed to hosting. 22 pistol events in those games. Indeed, Manchester finally won its bid for the games because of that assurance. The Home Secretary's applause for that victory was somewhat cynical. Shooting is the third most popular sport in the games and most nations compete in it. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that it covers 174 events in all.

Mr. Frank Cook: Within the Commonwealth games, some nations participate only in shooting events. Some nations are so small that they do not even have a running track or a football pitch. But they can and do participate in shooting, and they do so with great joy. They do not win many medals, but is the only way in which they can participate in the games. That is why the Commonwealth Games Association is so insistent that shooting be included.

Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point that I was about to make. I need not bother to make it now.

Mr. Michael: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his suggestion that there was anything cynical in what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. He cleared away any doubt about the position of shooting in the Commonwealth games—or, indeed, the Olympic games in the future. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to bolster a weak case by talking down the impending success of the Commonwealth games in Manchester.

Mr. Colvin: I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say. However, on the one hand the Home Secretary was applauding the fact that the games would be in Manchester and that the United Kingdom was committed to holding. 22 pistol events, but on the other he was telling British pistol shooters, "Bad luck chums, you can't participate."

Mr. Michael: My right hon. Friend was recognising reality; he was being honest and up front with the House. He made it quite clear that the safety of the public outweighs the continuation of the sport. He was perfectly honest about that. He then said, for precisely the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), that the law allowed him to make an exception so as to place no obstacle in the way of the


Commonwealth games—or, on a future occasion, the Olympic games—taking place in this country with participation in the sport.

Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman and I differ on this—

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Colvin: No, I am not wrong and I will not withdraw my remarks. It is extraordinary that visiting teams will be able to take part in a sport in which this country happens to excel, while our sports men will not be able to participate.
I wonder what sort of role the police will have. A marksman—a pistol shooter—is somewhat wedded to his weapon. I cannot imagine what it will be like when visiting teams come to this country and have to leave their weapons in an armoury and be escorted everywhere by the police to ensure that they comply with the proposed law.
I ask the Minister to make a note of what I am saying. Whereas with the existing Act, introduced by the Conservative Government, there was not any risk of contravention of the European convention on human rights, what is proposed by the Labour Government may run foul of the convention. The Minister may find himself, on behalf of the Government, having to defend the Government's position in the European courts. I am no great fan of those courts, but that is where the hon. Gentleman may find himself.

Mr. Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend said that we are dealing with an internationally recognised sport. Does he think that this House could gain any wisdom from the fact that almost every other country in the world recognises. 22 shooting as a legitimate sport and allows people to practise it?

Mr. Colvin: There are plenty of lessons to be learned. When drawing international comparisons, we should acknowledge the fact that this country already has the toughest firearms legislation of any country in the world. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Home Secretary, looks as though he wants to spring to his feet.

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Colvin: No, my right hon. and learned Friend is just listening attentively.
Has the Minister seriously considered the impact of the Bill's proposals on disabled people? What consultations have there been with the British Paraplegic Shooting Association, which has trained its members exceptionally hard for the Paralympics? Why should disabled shooters be penalised by the Government's proposals? That matter was raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Berwickupon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
The Bill does not deserve the support of the House. It contains proposals that quite unnecessarily attack the liberty of individuals, damage vital British sporting traditions and add injury to the already draconian measure introduced in the last Parliament. In the Government's

attempt to look tough, they have once again stepped over the mark. I urge all hon. Members to support the amendment.

Angela Smith: I take great pride in making my maiden speech as the Member for Basildon, which now includes east Thurrock. Basildon has a special place in the hearts of many Labour Members and supporters throughout the country. For a number of years, it has been regarded as a weathervane seat and the home of Essex man and Essex woman. No one could have envisaged that Romford or Hove would take over its weathervane title. It is a mantle which I am happy to pass on.
The boundaries of my seat have changed many times over the years. The new constituency includes Basildon, parts of Laindon and Langdon Hills and the new and welcome addition of east Thurrock, including Corringham and Fobbing, Stanford-le-Hope and Orsett. Those who think of it as merely an urban seat should think again. It has a large country park, numerous sites of special scientific interest, a rich and varied flora—including wetland species—and a number of farms.
The new town, which is held by many in great affection, provided for me and my family, and many like us, a new home, new jobs, a new community and a fresh start. Many Members of Parliament who have represented parts of my constituency have gone on to represent other constituencies, including Lord Braine, Sir Edward Gardner, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) and, most recently, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess),. who will always be remembered for the slogan, "I love Basildon".
The most recent Labour Member of Parliament was Eric Moonman, from 1966 to 1970 and from 1974 to 1979. Eric has retained his links with the community and he is recognised and remembered affectionately by many former constituents. All my predecessors, including a number whom I do not have time to mention this evening, have enjoyed the reputation of being hard-working, committed constituency Members of Parliament. It is a reputation that I, too, intend to earn.
Sadly, in 1984, the maiden speech of my predecessor, now the hon. Member for Southend, West, included strong attacks on Basildon council. As hon. Members will come to realise, my style is very different. The old politics of confrontation and attack must go and be replaced with partnerships and co-operation. I have three local authorities—Thurrock unitary, Essex county and Basildon district—and I shall work with them for the benefit of my constituents. They may make mistakes and I am sure that at times we shall disagree, but I promise them that my energies will be directed at working with, not against, them.
There are many misconceptions about my constituency. Basildon is a place that I have always called home and, like other Basildonians, I have been hurt and offended by some descriptions of my area. It may surprise some that a Labour Member would stand in this House and praise The Sun and The Daily Telegraph and criticise The Guardian, but we have had a far fairer hearing from the first two newspapers and are tired of some of the snide comments that we read about ourselves in other papers. It may come as no surprise that The Sun has the largest readership in my constituency, while The Guardian has the lowest. We ask only for fairness from all who consider us.
Sometimes, I do not even recognise descriptions of my constituency. I can now set the record straight. The Basildon and east Thurrock area is a developing one with a lively, ambitious and energetic population. Both Basildon and Thurrock have a thriving voluntary sector—local people giving freely of their time and energy for the benefit of others. Our schools make an enormous contribution to the community and will work in partnership with the Government to raise standards by providing better opportunities for all our young people.
A new development is the Basildon art and design initiative, led by local artist Tony Beckwith, who has developed a new art gallery, and works with schools and young people to encourage an interest in the arts and develop local talent. A local sculptor, Dave Chappel, has donated to the town a magnificent wooden "Basildon man" sculpture, which he made from a fallen tree. Tina Burrett from St. Cleres school was national young politician of the year for the 300 group in 1996. Science teacher, Karen Tann, from Nicholas school gained a Salters award for science and came second in the country. Many more have excelled in the fields of science and sport, including our excellent American football team.
My first official engagement as Member of Parliament was to attend the Basildon business awards and I shall attend Thurrock's business awards next week with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). The business community and the work force in both our constituencies are determined to play their part in regenerating the local environment and economy. I pay tribute to them for what they are doing.
Last Sunday, I met trade unionists from Belarus, hosted by Fiat unions and management. They are leading the way in developing links with workers in other countries, which is something from which we can all learn. I am proud to represent Basildon and shall do my best to ensure that a fairer and more balanced image of my constituency is presented in future.
I have received many representations on the handgun issue. I have had letters and telephone calls from people who supported the actions of the last Government in banning some handguns but felt that it did not go far enough. When a petition was drawn up in the constituency, that was the only occasion I have known people to queue for 20 minutes, to declare their interest and say how they felt about handguns.
The most recent figures issued in 1996 show that there are more than 40,000 handguns, although fewer than 5 per cent. of those are single shotguns. A major concern is the use of handguns in crime. Handguns, particularly. 22s, are small and easily concealable. In 1985, 1,200 incidents involved handguns. By 1995, however, that figure had more than doubled, although it reached a peak a couple of years earlier. In 1995, more than 3,000 criminal offences were committed using handguns. There were 150 cases of violence against the person, 230 cases of attempted murder and 39 homicide cases. Those are alarming statistics. Unfortunately, the Home Office has no breakdown of the separation of higher-calibre handguns and. 22s, but those crimes could equally have been committed with. 22s and there is no evidence to suggest that they will not continue to be committed if handguns remain in circulation. International comparisons bare that out.
Although many handgun owners and users are responsible and are as appalled as the rest of us at the use of handguns in crime, we cannot put their concerns and interests above genuine public safety concerns and fears. The public have made their views known on this issue. Neither they nor we are personally attacking handgun owners, but the case has yet to be made for keeping rather than banning handguns.
No one can say that the Bill alone will dramatically reduce crime or that a madman will not get hold of a gun. That is not in our power. We can, however, do everything possible to make it less likely. For the people of Basildon and east Thurrock and of Britain as a whole, I shall support the motion before us.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: First, I compliment the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on her excellent maiden speech. I am sure that the former hon. Members for Basildon will be pleased with her kind remarks about them.
I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on his earlier maiden speech. Unfortunately, I could not hear it all because I had to leave the Chamber to attend a Committee, but I know from colleagues that it was excellent and I wish to be associated with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) in complimenting my hon. Friend.
I wish to concentrate on shooting as a sport and issues to do with disabled sportsmen and women. First, however, in this of all debates, I should draw attention to the work done over many years by my distinguished former colleague, Sir Cranley Onslow. I take this opportunity also to mention my two other predecessors for my new constituency, Sir Michael Grylls and Sir David Howell. Although this is far from my maiden speech, it is the first substantive speech that I have made on a Second Reading debate in this Parliament as the first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Surrey Heath and it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the former Members for the three constituencies that make up the new seat—parts of Guildford, parts of Woking and North-West Surrey. Were those hon. Members still in the House, I am sure that they would all wish to speak on the same side as me in this debate. They were all distinguished Members who represented their constituencies ably over many years. Sir Michael Grylls was known for his work in supporting small businesses over many years and Sir Cranley Onslow was known, especially recently, for his work on this issue. In what is sure to be a happy retirement for him and Lady Onslow, I am sure that he will continue to take a strong interest in this issue above all others.
My concern is guided by the fact that Bisley is in my new constituency. The National Rifle Association's ranges are just over the constituency boundary in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Nevertheless, many people who chose to live in Bisley because of their interest and involvement in shooting are my constituents.
I have always been interested in sport. In the previous Parliament, I was, for some years, chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench sports committee and, before that, its secretary. I also had the honour to serve as


parliamentary private secretary in the Department of National Heritage, dealing with, among other matters, sport. In those capacities, I have been heavily involved in working with disabled sports people. I was involved in fund raising for the last two Paralympics for disabled fencing competitors, who competed with great success and won medals. I was involved with disabled athletes competing in wheelchair athletics and wheelchair racing.
As I mentioned in a brief intervention on the speech of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I have received a detailed letter on the Bill from the British Paraplegic Shooting Association. It is from the chairman, Mr. Nicholls, who has the honour of holding the British Empire Medal. He points out that all newly disabled people go to Stoke Mandeville sports stadium for the disabled with a view to taking part in as many and whatever sports they feel comfortable with. They arrive at the event of their choice—track, archery, swimming or shooting—by a process of elimination over a period of years. They are presented with shooting as a means of rehabilitation to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport. That provides them with a better quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world.
As the sport is closely followed by many disabled people at grass roots level, it follows that a wide range of disabled people are enthusiastic shooters, whether or not they ever reach the high standards required for the Paralympics. Those who reach the Paralympic standard train extremely hard—at least four times per week, and every day in the run-up to the Paralympics. Shooting is their sport.
Following the Paralympics in Atlanta in 1996, the Paralympic committee has taken out two of the air weapons events and increased the number of live ammunition events, because the competition in air weapons had reached such a high standard and more competitive participation was needed. The current situation is that disabled competitors use. 22 calibre pistols in six events in the Paralympics, three for men and three for women competitors: sport pistol, free pistol and standard pistol.
Mr. Nicholls has drawn my attention to the fact that many disabled shooters are women with children of their own. The deepest sympathy of disabled shooters therefore goes out to the parents of the children tragically killed by Thomas Hamilton at Dunblane. Should the disabled shooters be penalised because of the maniac who was already known to the police for alleged child abuse and misuse of firearms?
At the time of the debates in the previous Parliament, when I spoke twice to try to persuade the then Government to modify their view, I felt strongly and I still feel that a person who should have had his firearms certificate revoked before the event had a chance to take place, if the police had used the then existing law properly, should not cause the House to pass draconian legislation that will interfere hugely in the lives of so many people who simply wish to pursue a previously lawful sport.
Shooting for the disabled was initiated in this country and is now recognised world wide. It would be ironic if Great Britain were the only country to be eliminated from

international competitions by this legislation. The sport of disabled shooting has a proud history in the UK. Mr. Nicholls pointed out to me that the UK can boast the only shooter in the world who has won three gold medals in three consecutive Paralympics. At the Paralympics in Atlanta in 1996, UK disabled shooters won gold and silver medals and set a new Paralympic record. At the European championships in 1995, disabled shooters won one gold, two silver and one bronze medal. In the world Paralympic games in 1994, Great Britain won two gold, two silver and two bronze medals.
The loss to disabled shooters will be extensive, as they will no longer be able to socialise and travel the world to compete in their sport. It will take their quality of life back, perhaps to the Victorian era when disabled people were often shut away from the eyes of the world. No hon. Member would want to encourage that.
The proposed legislation will have huge effects on disabled people, as I hope I have made clear. There are yet further reasons for opposing it, as I do. I am particularly sorry that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey, among others, was not selected for debate.
Pistol shooting is one of the few sports in which everyone competes on equal terms—young, old, male, female, able bodied and disabled are all valued in the sport. It offers positive incentives for disabled people, as I mentioned. It is crucial that Labour Members, many of whom have a proud record of work for the disabled, as I am well aware, should take the concerns of disabled shooters carefully into account.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) who spoke powerfully earlier in the debate—albeit from the other side of the House, but on the same side of the argument as I am speaking—stressed the genuine concern felt by many of us on both sides of the House who take an interest in sport about the threat to the Commonwealth games in Manchester. Because of my strong involvement in sport in the north-west at the time, I was actively involved in supporting Manchester's bid to host the Commonwealth games, and I was delighted when it won. The UK is committed to hosting the. 22 pistol events in the games. That commitment, which was given by the previous Government, played a big part in the success of the Manchester bid.
It must be remembered that when the original bid was lodged, the organisers of the Manchester bid had omitted shooting events. The attempt to exclude shooting was fiercely opposed by other nations. Fifty of the 63 countries involved in the Commonwealth games made it known that they would vote for the inclusion of shooting, for reasons such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton, North. That is not surprising, as shooting is the third most popular sport in the games, and most Commonwealth countries compete in it. If the Bill became an Act, it might jeopardise Manchester's obligation and its opportunity to host the games. It would be wrong for the Bill to be enacted if it had that effect.
As a sporting spectacle, the pistol shooting events would be reduced to a farce, especially if the UK competitors were the only ones from any Commonwealth country who were unable to compete, as the Home Secretary made clear. The law as it stands will require competitors to have a section 5 licence to carry their guns in the country—a licence with requirements so stringent as not to be practicable.
There are huge concerns about the issues relating to sport, but I shall close by raising a concern mentioned by one of my constituents in correspondence with my former colleague, the former Member for North-West Surrey, Sir Michael Grylls, which was copied to me. The constituent wrote:
In 1979 our son aged 19 months died by drowning in a neighbour's unfenced swimming pool. All of our family can therefore relate to the terrible grieving that the Dunblane parents are suffering. However, we did not try to get our revenge on society by campaigning to have all private swimming pools filled in, and I am sure that such a campaign would not receive any political support as there would be no votes in it.
The constituent was writing to my predecessor, expressing the view that the law proposed by the then Government would destroy a legitimate sport and penalise law-abiding people who have committed no crime. He made a point that I found particularly powerful in his personal circumstances. He asked:
What has happened to British justice when you are supposed to be innocent until proved guilty if this sort of legislation can go through?
He was referring to the previous Government's proposals. I am sure that he would feel even more strongly about what the new Government are proposing by way of a total ban.
I received letters from people elsewhere in the country who had lost sons and daughters in road accidents. As a young lawyer, I was brought up to believe that hard cases make bad law. There are no proposals from the present Government, as I understand it, to ban the use of motor cars simply because people sometimes steal cars and use them in a way that leads to the death of young children.

Mr. Colvin: The noble Lord Monson recently asked a parliamentary question about the number of deaths of children in road accidents. The last year for which figures are available is 1994; I forget the precise figure, but it was more than 400.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention, which reinforces my point.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Basildon, who made her excellent maiden speech before I spoke, and some of her hon. Friends, to some further interesting statistics that were presented in an article in the Police Review last autumn. The comparison of rates of armed crime and firearms ownership over the past 40 years reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend.
In the whole of 1954, there were only four armed robberies in London in which firearms were used. Between April 1994 and April 1995, there were 1,338 recorded crimes of a similar type in the Metropolitan area—nearly four a day. However, during the same period, from 1954 to 1994, the number of firearms certificate holders in London dropped dramatically. It was estimated in the article that there were roughly half as many certificate holders in London now as there were in the 1950s. There is no simple relationship between conventional armed crime and the lawful possession of firearms.
There is even more striking support for the view that lawfully owned firearms and armed crime are effectively unrelated. That comes from a study of firearms used in armed robberies in the Metropolitan area, which was

conducted by Metropolitan Detective Inspector Adrian Maybanks. He discovered that of 657 weapons used in armed robberies in the Metropolitan area from January 1988 to 30 June 1991—a period of three and a half years—about half turned out on investigation to be imitation firearms. Of the remaining 328 firearms, only one had ever been within the lawful licensing system. Detective Inspector Maybanks concluded that a simplistic ban on one category of gun or on all legally owned guns was likely to be counterproductive, not least because it was bound to drive more guns underground.
I practised at the Bar for a number of years, and senior police officers have told me that guns used to commit crimes are normally held illegally. This legislation is an attempt to destroy the legitimate interest of law-abiding people in a sport that has always been lawful, in a totally vain attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, and to prevent maniacs from committing crimes. However, I am afraid that maniacs and other criminals will procure weapons illegally if they are determined to do so. That is the nature of the society in which we live.
If hon. Members believe that by supporting the Bill they will stop crime and maniacs, they are very much mistaken. They will simply destroy a legitimate sport which is enjoyed by literally thousands of our citizens. This is an example of hard cases making bad law, and the legislation is misconceived.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall also make my maiden speech this evening. So many hon. Members have made maiden speeches tonight describing so many parts of the United Kingdom that it occurs to me that visitors from abroad who are in the Strangers Gallery might have saved themselves the cost of a guide book.
I represent Medway and the historic cities of Rochester and Chatham. My immediate predecessor, Dame Peggy Fenner, represented Medway for 18 years and served for a time as Minister of State in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On 1 May, she came to the end of a long and distinguished career in public life as a local councillor and Member of Parliament. She was a formidable opponent and a politician of total integrity. In defeat, she was charm and graciousness itself. I pay tribute to her and wish her well. I know that all hon. Members would do the same.
Before Dame Peggy, Medway was represented by three equally formidable Labour Members: Bob Bean, whose tragic early death robbed us of a great parliamentarian; before him, the formidable Ann Kerr; and, before her, the equally formidable Arthur Bottomley. I treasure a letter sent to me by an octogenarian constituent immediately following the I May election. It says simply, "If you're half as good as Arthur, you will be all right". I shall do my best. One is entering an awesome pantheon and must bear an awesome weight, but it is made much lighter by the nature of one's constituency.
The historic towns of Rochester and Chatham are surrounded by beautiful and eccentric countryside. To the west, are the woods and hills of Kent and, to the east, the flat and daunting lands of the Hoo peninsula, with its sites of scientific interest and its teeming wildlife set against the industrial landscape of north Kent. We have the finest mediaeval castle in the country: discuss. We also own what is almost certainly the most dignified and perfectly formed cathedral.
In the middle of my constituency is the historic dockyard of Chatham, which, until comparatively recently, employed 17,000 of my constituents and those from neighbouring constituencies. If one seeks to discover the unique character of those who live in the Medway towns, one need look no further than the dockyard and the surrounding barracks and the industries that supported them.
We are a tough lot. We have been in the front line of conflict for 400 years against just about every European country. That has produced a breed of people in the Medway towns who are resilient and full of humour, but who are without prejudice or xenophobia. They do not, and would not, subscribe to the small-mindedness of view and the smallness of vision that sometimes masquerades as Euro-scepticism. Rochester is proud to be a European city. It lies at the gateway to Europe and, with a new council and unitary authority in place, we look forward to addressing some of the problems that have beset the Medway towns in the past 20 years.
We lost no less than 70 per cent. of our manufacturing base in that time and we are the largest conurbation in Europe without its own university. During my stewardship, one of my principal aims will be to see the laying of the foundation stone of a new academic institution—possibly the first university of Europe—in that area. We deserve it because we have not only a long tradition of science, technology and engineering, but an unrivalled cultural tradition in the arts and literature. We are the spiritual home of the greatest novelist ever to write in the English language. I could take you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Hoo peninsula to visit the graveyard where the infant Pip met his eventual benefactor, the convict Magwitch, who—if my memory serves me aright—was being pursued by hounds. That is another pastime that I hope we shall see the end of during this Administration.
I turn to the debate in hand. I shall be brief because hon. Members have rehearsed accurately and succinctly—save in one or two cases—the arguments with which we must deal. I immediately declare an interest in the debate and it has been mentioned already. This morning I received a telephone call from someone who described himself as the agent of the parliamentary rifle club. The agent asked me whether I was related to the chair of the Gun Control Network. I do not know why an agent had to ask me that question—I would have answered just as readily if I had been asked in the Members Lobby. The answer is yes. I am not ashamed of that fact and, what is more, I declare a further interest in that I have played some small—and I mean a very small—part in the workings of that organisation, which is the principal campaigner for the total abolition of handguns in the United Kingdom.
In the course of that work, I have had the rare privilege of working with a number of those who were bereaved as a result of the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies. I take issue immediately on their behalf with one of the comments by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I assure him and the House, with all the force that I can command, that those people do not seek revenge on society for the horror inflicted upon them. I have never worked with a more rational group of people whose only interest is to ensure that that horror is not visited upon others. They understand better than anyone

that legislation of this sort will create casualties and that it will cut across the civil liberties of others. I assure the House that those who work towards this aim take no pleasure from that fact and do not seek revenge. This organisation and this legislation has only one aim: to ensure that the children of Dunblane, of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom grow up in a safer place.
There is only one predication: will the legislation work? If it does not, there is no point in enacting it, and on that basis I make common cause with those who have spoken against the Bill. There is no right inherent in the House or anywhere else to remove people's civil liberties, or their pleasures or fun, in the interests of something that is simply vanity. In considering whether the Bill will work if it is enacted, however, let me adopt the legal metaphor that was used by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath; the burden of proof comes into play, and the burden of proof changed after Dunblane. We do not ask ourselves whether the Bill will work. Instead, we ask, "If there is any chance whatsoever of this proposed legislation helping at all in any circumstances to stop a Dunblane happening again, should we pass it?"
I say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and to others who have spoken articulately against the Bill that when the issue is put to the acid test there is only one choice, and that is to go into the Lobby in support of the Bill.
I, too, have some facts and statistics. It is incontrovertible in terms of international statistics that the countries that are the most liberal in their gun laws also have the largest gun ownership. Those countries that have the largest gun ownership have also the largest illegitimate use of guns, mainly in the commission of homicide.
It is perfectly possible to say that America is a special case. It is a frontier society with a culture of violence. It is a new society. The same cannot be argued for law-abiding, clock-making Switzerland. There, after centuries of liberalisation of gun control, where 13 times more people hold guns than are held in this country legitimately, there are 10 times more homicides caused by firearms than in the UK. The list continues and reaches Japan, which is not known for its law-abiding behaviour. It should be recognised, however, that Japan has had the courage to ban handguns. It is at the bottom of the international league for crimes committed with illegally held weapons.
Another statistic cannot be ignored. In the United States there is by head of population, amazingly enough, only three times the number of murders that take place in the UK that are not committed with handguns. If handguns are included in the equation, however, the United States have 150 times more murders than us. If we want to step down that road even a short way, we shall continue to license and keep within our culture the legitimate use of handguns.
That brings me to my next point, which has been largely ignored during the debate. Why is there a direct equation between the legitimate ownership of handguns and their illegitimate use? I suggest that there are two reasons for that. The first is the crude question of opportunity. The more guns that are available the more they will be used, and the more that they will find their way into illicit hands. Secondly, the more liberal that we are in our gun legislation the more we are seen tacitly to


condone and support a gun culture. The more that we tacitly support that culture the easier it will be for people to obtain guns and commit crimes with them.
I do not suppose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have seen some of the films the names of which I could reel off, having made a study of these matters. In our youth, Mr. Deputy Speaker, together perhaps, we used to see films such as "High Noon" or the romances based on that film, during which people were shot and fell over. That happened five or six times during the film, normally at the end. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could take you to see current films during which there is a death or a maiming by handguns every 17 seconds. The victims do not merely fall over. There are the most graphic details that the cinema of today can produce.
There is a gun culture and we live in unhappy and violent times. We cannot control that. In a free society it is difficult to produce such controls. But let us send a collective message from the House, in representing the people of the United Kingdom, that we shall not tolerate as part of a gun culture the legitimate use and handling of firearms. Let us make it clear that they will be outlawed despite the fact that there will be casualties. Those of us who feel strongly about these matters take no joy in that consequence, including those with whom I work. To use an unparliamentary expression, all this stuff about the Olympics being put in jeopardy by the banning of handguns is pure bunkum. The argument has been cooked up to produce a smokescreen.
It is perfectly possible to organise the Olympics on the basis that we do not participate in one sport. We do not participate in some canoeing events that involve three or four people with paddles. That has done has no harm in the Olympic games and we can still stage them in Manchester. It is unlikely that the canoes of which I speak will appear on the Manchester waterways. At the same time, as a sportsman, I feel considerable compassion for the sportsmen and women who will be involved. Undoubtedly, however, the greater good must prevail.
I can say as a lawyer that the licensing and regulation of handguns is, in reality, impossible. We shall never devise a system that will stop someone like Thomas Hamilton getting possession of a legal firearm. Those who are charged with licensing guns adopt a discretion. My lawyer friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), nods and he knows well what I am about to say, which is that that discretion must be judicial. The use of prescience or the concept that someone is unpleasant and therefore should not have a handgun would not be a way of depriving individuals of ownership. That is exactly the Thomas Hamilton case. There were many people who felt that he should not have had a gun, but an advised decision was taken that he had to have it. That will happen again. There is only one way out of the conundrum and that is a total ban.
I urge right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill to accept that the honourable course is to impose a total ban. I pay tribute to Bob Hughes, who is no longer a Member—he was a casualty at Harrow, West—but who had the courage to break his own Whip when this issue was last debated. There were many good reasons for the Tories losing Harrow, West, but Bob Hughes's espousal of the cause that I have presented was certainly not one of them. He worked closely with the Gun Control Network and with its chairman, my wife.

That resulted in her having the perhaps unsavoury distinction of appearing in two election addresses in a general election, one Tory and one Labour.
I commend the Bill to the House. I have been proud to play some part in the efforts of the campaigning teams that, I hope, have assisted Members in the preparation of the Bill. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge Members to accept that the Government's proposal, regrettable though it might be, is the only way in which safety can be ensured.

Mr. Mike Hancock: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) on a splendid and memorable first speech. Dickens might have found a spiritual home in the proud city of Portsmouth. He was born in the city, a fact of which we are extremely proud.
I am probably unknown to many Members, but I think that it is 10 years ago to the day that I was last a Member of this place.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Where is David Owen now?

Mr. Hancock: That is a good point: if the hon. Member knows, there are others who want to know.
I pay tribute to my predecessor. I thank him on behalf of the people of Portsmouth, South for the efforts that he put in on their behalf. I am sure that David Martin will be remembered by those for whom he worked. As I have said, he put in a great deal of effort on behalf of many people. I know that from correspondence that I have received since 1 May. I wish him and his family all the best for the future.
I am delighted to speak after a Member representing another naval constituency. It was nice to hear Chatham spoken of in such dignified terms. I speak as one who represents the finest of all British cities; I hate to contradict the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who made his maiden speech yesterday, but I am sure that, when he spoke of the fair city of Lancaster, he forgot to include Portsmouth in what he judged to be the country's finest cities.
I am very happy to represent Portsmouth, South again. I had the privilege and pleasure of serving the constituency some 10 years ago, and well remember the opportunities that that afforded me to speak on behalf of the people of Portsmouth. Much has changed in the intervening time, however.
We in Portsmouth have struggled to come to terms with the rundown of the defence industries, and have fought magnificently to rekindle enthusiasm within the city for its future. We look forward with great expectation to the developments associated with our gaining of Millennium Commission support for a major project in our city. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) will join me in wishing Portsmouth all the best, in the hope that those endeavours will come to fruition in time for them to be celebrated in the millennium year. We trust that the whole nation will share in the occasion.
We also celebrate the success of our football team, led and managed by Mr. Terry Venables—who no doubt will bring much enjoyment to Portsmouth if he succeeds in


bringing players from down under to play at Fratton Park in the coming season, delivering the success that we have been narrowly denied during the past three or four years.
Portsmouth is a very special place. It is a cosmopolitan city; it is the home of the Royal Navy, and of one of the United Kingdom's newest universities. It has contributed to the history of the nation for 2,000 years, and it is incredibly proud of those traditions. Only last week, we unveiled a statue of one of the United Kingdom's greatest heroes, Lord Montgomery, on our seafront, and in a few days' time we shall celebrate the success of our task force in the Falklands war. Portsmouth needs to be represented well in this place. That is why it is important for the voice of its people to be heard in regard to the issue that we are discussing.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on the courageous way in which he presented the Bill today: I am sure that he could have found an easier way—he could have run away from some of the difficult points that were put to him—but he denied no interruption, and gave hon. Members every opportunity to put him on the spot in regard to sporting issues. I heard him say that he had been assured that the Commonwealth games would not be threatened by the legislation, and I accept that he had researched that. He also promised that he would look into the position regarding the Olympic games.
I must declare an interest: I have a firearms certificate, and have had one for a long time. I have fired pistols and rifles for nearly two decades. I have enjoyed the hospitality, friendship and comradeship of shooters in this country and abroad, and have enjoyed the privilege and pleasure of shooting on many ranges in this country. I have done that in the knowledge that I was enjoying a sport—but I have not fired a gun since the Dunblane massacre. This morning, before coming to the House, I handed my last firearm in to the Portsmouth police station.
I have my current firearms certificate with me. It is quite interesting. I am sure that not many of my constituents are aware that it was—and legally still is—possible for me to possess five weapons, all of them capable of killing people. I could have had nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition in my home at any one time, but I am glad to say that I now have none of those things. I handed in my last weapon today, because anyone speaking in a debate such as this becomes extremely vulnerable as soon as he says that he owns guns. His property becomes vulnerable to people who would use an opportunity to gain access to a weapon.
We should all be concerned about the fact that 500 legally owned guns were stolen in the last year for which statistics exist. People may think that their weapons are secure. They may do what I did, and break weapons down, storing ammunition and pistols in separate containers and in different parts of the house. But they can never be sure that a chance burglary will not happen—or, indeed, a premeditated burglary. The burglar may know that someone is a gun enthusiast.
Since Dunblane, however, I have been unable to bring myself to support the idea that anything other than a total ban would be acceptable to the British people. Given that, according to the latest poll, 83 per cent. of people support such a ban, I cannot conceive that there is now any excuse

for us to do other than support the Bill. I say that with a great deal of heartache: I feel sad for people who have enjoyed the sport for much longer than I have—the people who offered me friendship, and encouraged me to use their weapons and ranges to enjoy the sport of shooting. I know what a wrench it will be for them to be denied that opportunity.
Many disabled people have found that shooting is the one thing that makes them live again. I have met a number of those people, and have recently presented awards to some of them. I have also helped to develop the techniques used by some whose ambition is to learn to shoot. However, there are other ways in which such people can develop their potential. Their weapons will not be outlawed. I am sure that many paraplegics will turn to air weapons if they still want to shoot.
I am not at all worried that we as a nation will be forbidden to bid for future major sporting events, and I think that it is a travesty to suggest that that in itself would be a good reason not to ban weapons. I commend the Home Secretary for defending his position so forthrightly today.
The police will have less of a burden. They will not have to deal with the day-to-day routine tasks that the last Government's legislation would have increased dramatically. As the Home Secretary pointed out, the Bill will enable the police to devote more energy to ridding the nation of illegally held weapons, and of people who systematically peddle weapons. There will be no excuse now, because, after the three-month handing-in period, all legally held weapons should no longer be available.
I thought it unforgivable that the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), should suggest that legitimate gun owners would go underground. I considered that a slur of the worst possible kind, and, as a firearms certificate holder, I took offence personally. How outrageous it was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer to public safety as an important factor. He found every excuse under the sun for not recommending the Bill, but not once did he address the issue of whether we would live in a safer nation if we banned handguns. I found that a sad and startling omission.
I was also disappointed that so many Conservative Members tried to hide the true issue by supporting shooting activities among the disabled. I felt that that undersold and undervalued their contribution, and I thought it sad that Conservative Members had sunk to such a level, given that the nation had demanded that Parliament balance the issues carefully and then decide.
I have no hesitation in giving the Bill my whole-hearted support. It is right, proper and long overdue. An opportunity was missed, not last year but after Hungerford. That is when the true tragedy of Dunblane occurred. With hindsight, it just may be that we can look back and say that, if only we had seized that opportunity—it is a big if—Dunblane might not have happened.
Tonight, we have the opportunity to give the Bill a Second Reading, to give it a fair wind in Committee, and to wish it well on Third Reading, and the nation has the opportunity to get behind it. I am sure that most reasonable people will feel that there is nothing but justice


in what the Government are trying to achieve this evening. I believe that, on balance, the Government have got it right, and that the Bill is worthy of support.

Mr. Graham Stringer: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I had not intended to speak. I was looking forward to making my maiden speech on a subject which I knew rather more about, possibly the arcane workings of local government finance, or some such thing. But because the Commonwealth games and the Olympic games have been mentioned so much, about which I know quite a lot, having led, with Sir Bob Scott, Britain's bid for the Olympics in 1996 and 2000, and having led the successful English bid for the Commonwealth games in 2002, I decided to try to participate.
First, in accordance with the traditions of the House, I am delighted to pay my respects to my predecessor, Ken Eastham. Ken Eastham was elected to the House in 1979, but I had known him for some time before that. I must be one of the few new Members who have known their predecessor for most of their life. Ken could sometimes appear a little dour, but he did his work extraordinarily well, and behind that facade there were often extreme acts of kindness above and beyond the usual advice bureau work that one would expect from an MP, and which in Ken's case one got—both his constituents and new members of the Labour party.
For example, when I joined the Labour party in the early 1970s, a long time before new Labour, I lived in the area that Ken represented as a local councillor. That was at a time in the inner city when the ease of access to the Labour party was often in inverse proportion to the number of members that the Labour party had in that branch. In addition, young, opinionated, new graduates were also not often welcomed into inner-city Labour parties. Those parties were often said to be closed. But Ken Eastham went out of his way to help me along in the Labour party, and to support me in a way that at that time was quite unusual.
It was also at that time as a councillor that Ken took up the fight against corruption and what has more recently been called sleaze. He ran a long campaign against some dodgy contracts in which the local authority was involved, and had them changed. As a Member of this House, he was always the hammer of corruption. He spoke out against sleaze on a number of occasions, and that fitted well with his personality—that of an upright man reeking of integrity.
I shall just mention one other part of his work which I hope to follow. Although the British Aerospace factory at Chadderton is not within the Manchester, Blackley constituency, many of my constituents work there. Ken was tireless in trying to get contracts for British Aerospace in order to ensure that the people he represented stayed in work. Ken will be sadly missed as the Member for Blackley, and I hope to follow in his footsteps.
I was delighted on my election to receive a letter from the previous Member for Blackley, Paul Rose. I had not seen him since he decided to retire at an early age in 1979. He was elected to the Chamber in 1964, when he was the youngest Member of the House. He could still be the Member for Blackley, because he worked hard, he fought

against racism and he was a good constituency MP. His letter of congratulations told me—something which I did not know—that he is now a coroner in the south of England. I hope also to follow in the tradition of Paul Rose.
It is also traditional in a maiden speech to talk about one's constituency—in my case, Manchester, Blackley, which the BBC often annoyingly pronounces incorrectly when giving election results. I have listened to a number of maiden speeches today and on previous occasions, when hon. Members have laid claim to win the competition to represent the most beautiful constituency in the country.
Unfortunately, I would not enter Blackley in that competition. Its people are wonderful, and the constituency has many attributes, but I do not think that anyone would believe me if I said that it has the best scenery in the United Kingdom—it does not. However, it has, if not the largest, one of the largest municipal parks in Europe, which is often visited and which will in the near future benefit from lottery money—Heaton park. It also has one of the three oldest municipal parks—Queen's park—which, again, we hope will receive money from the lottery fund. Along with Phillips park and a park in Salford, it was one of the first municipal parks.
The constituency also benefited from the first modern tram system to be introduced in Britain, which runs between the city centre and Bury in the north and Altrincham in the south. I hope during my period as Member of Parliament to extend that system to other parts of the constituency, which will benefit enormously.
I said that the constituency is not beautiful. It is a traditional industrial area, with many houses, which suffered enormously during the recessions of the early 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, each one biting into its economic and employment base further than the other. We lost the Ferranti factory when Ferranti went bankrupt, British Aerospace has contracted and ICI, turning into Zeneca, has also contracted. One of the most important tasks, and one reason for supporting the Government's programme, is to bring jobs back to Blackley and to ensure that the existing industry expands and employs more people.
As unemployment in the constituency has risen, so many of the social conditions have become worse. There is considerable poverty in parts of the constituency. Much of the housing in the private and public sector needs much investment. There is a great deal to do within the constituency, and I look forward to many of the Government's Bills which will improve that situation.
One of the ways in which the constituents of Blackley will find employment is as a result of the Commonwealth games in 2002. The job creation potential of major international sporting events, particularly multi-sporting events, is not generally known. It is estimated that the Commonwealth games will produce about the same number of jobs as half a car-manufacturing plant. I should like many of those jobs to go to people within Blackley and its immediate area, where most of the games will take place—Manchester, Central.
Therefore, I am concerned with some of the comments that have been made in the debate, suggesting that in some way the Commonwealth Games will not take place in Manchester in 2002. They will take place, and I will explain why.
There is a contract between the bidding city, Manchester city council, and the Commonwealth Games Federation, the international body which is the equivalent of the International Olympic Committee. Within that, there are only two reasons for taking away the Commonwealth Games. First, a natural disaster, an earthquake, a riot or a major event would prevent the games from taking place. Secondly, the games would be stopped if they were not properly organised. One cannot predict natural disasters, but they are unlikely in Manchester. We will organise an excellent games, not only for Manchester but for the whole of the United Kingdom. It will be the largest multi-sport event to take place in this country since the 1948 Olympic games.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his comments about the shooting event in the games. He said that he would use his powers to allow it to take place. He paid me a tribute, for which I am thankful. I thought that the tradition was for hon. Members to receive praise after they had made their maiden speech and not before, but I am grateful for his remarks.
A Conservative Member gave 80 per cent. of the story of why shooting is part of the games. It is correct that Manchester's original bid did not include shooting. We won the English nomination against London, and Sheffield withdrew. We had no competitors in Bermuda. The biggest hurdle we had to get over was obtaining the English nomination. We had not included shooting, although, by certain criteria, it is the third most popular sport in the Commonwealth games. When we decided which sports to include, we listed costs against income, the number of spectators that watch the sports, the history of the sport and other obvious criteria. After we had done that, shooting dropped out.
When we got to Bermuda, the shooting lobbies from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and the Falklands drew up a petition and asked us to include the event. It is inconceivable that, at that stage, having got the English nomination and having passed all the necessary tests, we would not have been awarded the games even if we had not included shooting. We were to get the nomination, and we wanted everyone to be happy.
The Sports Council was on our delegation, and it said that it would do everything that it could to provide the funds for a shooting range. So we included shooting, and the Commonwealth Games Federation was delighted. It was not a condition, and even if we took the most extreme position and shooting were to be excluded—which it will not be because of the commitment given by the Home Secretary—it would not prevent the Commonwealth games from coming to England in 2002.
There is no doubt that the event will be affected. It is not well known that seven home countries compete in the Commonwealth games, including Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland, which is not included in the Bill. Representatives from those countries will still be able to train and compete, but the event will be affected because English, Welsh and Scottish pistol shooters will not be able to train if the Bill is passed.
In Bermuda, I gave a commitment to the Commonwealth Games Federation that shooting would be included. It will be included, given the Home Secretary's assurance, but it will be a different competition from the one intended.
I have listened to the debate, and have thought about the issues a great deal. A balance has to be struck between individual liberties and the potential for another Dunblane. I am persuaded that, on balance, the Bill is right. However, I gave a personal commitment to the Commonwealth Games Federation, and we are now in a different position for understandable reasons.
Although I am persuaded of the arguments, I feel that in all honour I shall have to abstain on this issue. I do not like abstaining, because we must make a decision, but I have no alternative, given the situation and the fact that I presented the case on behalf of Manchester and England. I hope that I have clarified a number of issues surrounding the Commonwealth games.

Mr. Howard Flight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to give my maiden speech. I am privileged to represent the new Arundel and South Downs constituency. As many hon. Members may know, it is a beautiful part of England. It nestles under the south downs and is twice the size of the Isle of Wight. It comprises parts of five previous constituencies, the three main ones being Horsham, Arundel and Mid-Sussex. As is traditional, I shall pay tribute to all five Members of Parliament from whom I have taken over, particularly the three who represented the main constituencies.
Sir Peter Hordern was a Member of the House for 33 years. He was enormously respected both here and in the constituency. He was a member of the Public Accounts Committee and the 1922 Committee. He was one of the early disciples of Enoch Powell, in that he understood that this country could not achieve economic success without a sufficient market economy. I am delighted that the Prime Minister seems to have understood that, even if his deputy has not yet done so.
To the west, Sir Michael Marshall represented Arundel for 23 years. He is greatly loved in the constituency and in the House, and remains in Arundel. I viewed him as a model of an utterly decent Member of Parliament. He is also the author of five books, including a biography of Jack Buchanan. Like me, he worked in India for a while and shares my great love of that country. In recent years, he made a considerable contribution to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
To the east, Tim Renton, now Lord Renton, represented Mid-Sussex for 23 years. He served as Chief Whip, as Under-Secretary and as Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and at the Home Office. Following his retirement, Tim Renton has become chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, where he will have an important role in protecting the beauty of our environment—a subject to which I shall return.
The two other previous Members are Michael Stephen, because a small part of Shoreham has come into my constituency, and Tony Nelson, who represented Chichester. Their successors either have already paid or will pay tribute to those two, so I shall simply say that the House will be all the poorer without Michael Stephen's contribution on law and order debates, and that Tony Nelson made a great contribution both at the Treasury and at the Board of Trade.
When the new constituency was created, there were great rows not only about the boundary changes but about the name, because Arundel is right in the west of the


constituency, which also contains three other old parliamentary boroughs—Hurstpierpoint, Steyning and Bramber.
Those boroughs have a fascinating history. The great Wilberforce represented Bramber—although he did not know where it was at the time, because it was the third rottenest borough. I discovered that one John Major represented Steyning for about 20 years, until the Reform Act of 1832 abolished the "labour" vote that had sustained him. Arundel has had the support of the great and talented Norfolk family, which continues to this day both in the country at large and in the county.
Many others made great contributions in the past. For instance, Richard Cobden, the apostle of free trade, lived just down the road. To come right up to date, I can add that many of the British citizens who have gone about the world to make their careers and build businesses in Asia retire to our part of the world, and have contributed enormously to this country and its interests.
The constituency today consists of five market towns—Henfield, Hurstpierpoint, Steyning, Arundel and Pulborough—with their surrounding villages. If there is one common major issue, it is the desire to preserve that part of west Sussex as we have inherited it. It is only an hour away from London, and is under the threat of urbanisation.
Half the constituency is a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, and if the demands for housing, roads and gravel pits that much of today's bureaucracy brings were accepted, the other half of the constituency would be ruined. In that connection, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board has been an interesting and innovative concept. It is not a national park, but it takes on many of the responsibilities of one, without the planning role.
Finally, I was amused to discover that the house that my wife and I bought in Arundel was apparently the centre of Britain's defences against European invasion along the south coast in the Napoleonic wars. The closer we get to the south coast, the more people seem to become sensitive about their nationhood.
That brings me to the subject of the debate. During the election campaign, it seemed to me that the issue that people cared about most on the doorsteps was what our future vis-à-vis Europe would be. However, I had far more letters on the gun issue than on any other subject. They were all critical of the 1997 Act passed by the Tory Government, and enormously fearful that if there were a new Labour Government, the politically correct policy of a complete ban would be embraced.
I have discovered that in Sussex we have 60 of the total of 1,600 gun clubs, with nearly 2,000 members between them—no doubt because that part of the world is fairly close to Bisley. I am not a shooter; it has not been my sport. However, like the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have thought hard and long about the subject. I believe that a law-abiding minority are suffering injustice, to no proven end. The logical conclusion of what many people who support a complete ban on pistol shooting and gun clubs have said would be to stop any activity if there were any risk that it could lead to people being killed.
The nation's hearts went out to the families and parents at Dunblane, but when I think about the tragedy, I think particularly about people who are mentally unstable and

let loose in society who may kill people with guns, poleaxes or whatever. A personal friend of mine is worried that her 23-year-old son, who is in society being minded by a 23-year-old lady, might kill somebody, and there is nothing that she can do to stop it. It is strange that the whole focus is on the means, and not on the bigger problem in society—how we strike the balance in protecting society from people who are mentally unstable.
I pay great tribute to the speech by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who covered most of the details and meat of the issue with great eloquence. I have certainly learned a lot this evening. My perception is that the 1997 Act—passed by the previous Conservative Government—has imposed a tighter regime here than anywhere outside of Japan, but we have not had time to see how it works. We are in no way a gun culture society—although I might add that if there is a risk of becoming so, it will come from the media and not from gun clubs. The Act was passed following much national debate and agony in the House, and the correct thing to do would be to let it work for a year or so to see what happens.
I am nervous about the argument that banning all guns will make the life of the police easier, as we all know that the real danger—as with prohibition, when the Americans did something similar in a different area—is if a police force gets sloppy in trying to police illegal guns. The crucial issue is how we prevent weapons of any sort from falling into the wrong hands, and we must not give the police an easy ride in doing that.
Many of the speeches in the debate made me uncomfortable, and contained an overkill of political correctness. I was reminded of other issues, when the House has gone overboard in reacting to tragic events, and when the first reaction has been to legislate after the event and over the top. Are measures produced to appease public opinion, or because Governments try to get out of their future responsibilities? We should stand back and think long and hard about these problems—as with similar legislation in the past on dangerous dogs and even on financial services. One does not stop crooks by passing legislation. One will not stop madmen and murderers by getting rid of guns.
Some 60,000 people are to be told casually that they cannot do their sport. We must get the balance right between protecting the majority and looking after the liberty of the minority. I am immensely unhappy at the ease with which people are prepared to ditch the interests of the minority.
The Cullen report was the professional investigation into the subject, and I wish to end—as did another speaker—by stating the conclusion of the report. Lord Cullen—I know well that the 1997 legislation did not follow all his recommendations—said:
I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified. I cannot see that there is any argument that that banning would make the risk of another Dunblane occurring any the less.
Many of those involved are simply scoring political points and trying to appease public opinion.
I want to defend my constituents of all political persuasions against the imposition of a tyranny. I very much hope that the House will allow the 1997 Act to operate before going over the top and enacting the Bill.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on a thoughtful maiden speech. I have never been to the south downs, probably because they are a bit close to Europe for me, but his description made me want to go there; they must be almost as nice as Grimsby. I congratulate him also on his tributes to his five predecessors. That is approximately the working ratio in the Tory party after the election, with one Member replacing five. His tribute was entirely appropriate to the distinguished Members who preceded him.
I must declare a lack of interest, because I am not a gun enthusiast and I do not like the sport. I am terrified of guns and do not even like holding them, so I am not speaking from concern with guns and gun culture. I hope to argue that the rush of emotion is a bad basis for legislation.
We all feel strongly about Dunblane, but our responsibility in dealing with the consequences is to consider how best to prevent a repetition. The most rational and effective way of preventing it from happening again is not to rush into legislation. When the House rushes into legislation under a strong emotional influence, it always makes mistakes. We are perpetuating the rush that happened last year in the immediate aftermath of Dunblane.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who made intimidatingly good maiden speeches, but, apart from the maiden speeches, we have merely heard a repetition of the speeches of November and December last year, perpetuating that rush into legislation.
The rational way is to think matters through. I hate having to differ from the bulk of people in my party, because I believe in the collective wisdom of parties and the way in which we help to shape each other's thought, but in this instance I believe that we should not go further down this road. We should hang on and think a little more.
The last piece of rushed legislation was about dangerous dogs—the persecution of pit bull terriers legislation—and it has been a disastrous mess. The rush to legislation that began with the 1997 Act has left several messy consequences that were not thought through at the time. It has left a far bigger bill for compensation than need be. We had estimates earlier this week of a total of £140 million or £150 million, and people may say that that is a price worth paying, but that is not the price, because the final bill will almost certainly be higher; we do not know how high. After this afternoon's financial statement, it is unreasonable for us to take on untold obligations. The cost could be £300 million, and I have heard even bigger estimates.
The Bill does nothing about illegal weapons, which are a major problem. It would have been far more effective if we had at the same time increased penalties and imposed greater sanctions on illegal weapons, which are far more numerous and more of a danger than legal weapons.
We are destroying the gun clubs, which are a means of restraint, of community and of people working together. In clubs, there is a discipline and people can keep an eye on each other. The gun clubs have been destroyed by the previous legislation. For example, in Grimsby, people

have borrowed money, taken out extra mortgages and run up overdrafts to build up the gun club for their recreation and their sport. The club has suffered a huge loss of members, because they have been driven out. The members feel that they have become a distasteful minority. They face financial ruin, and the discipline that comes from the gun clubs will go. The gun clubs have been crippled, but we need them to provide a restraint on the use of weapons.
We should not ignore the effect of the Bill on the police. The Bill will have an impact on the proficiency of police firearms squads. At the moment, their official training is limited and their time on the range is limited, as are the number of rounds that they can fire and the style of shooting that they can adopt. When the police are in a stake-out, they cannot stand square as if they were on a range. Officers have supplemented their official training by joining gun clubs, at their own expense, and buying weapons. They have become more proficient, versatile and skilled and, therefore, much safer in their possession of weapons. That will stop and will be a severe setback for the squads.
The previous legislation has had the effects that I outlined. The Bill will compound the problem by banning. 22s, which were not used in Dunblane. We shall repeat the same mistakes. In banning the weapons, we shall not ban the gun culture. We cannot legislate against the culture of guns, because that would mean the censorship and control of television, which encourages it. We do not try to ban the lad culture or the sex culture through legislation.
Legislation should not try to ban or eliminate the gun culture: it should try, in the most effective and cost-efficient way, to stop guns being available in public, carried in public and used in public. I return to the argument that has not been advanced by many hon. Members in today's debate, although it was made in November and by Lord Cullen. It is not an original argument. Lord Cullen suggested that the most effective way to deal with the problem was to require dismantling of guns. By the simple expedient of requiring part of the gun to be kept at the club and the other part to be taken home by the owner of the gun, we would stop complete guns being available in public.
That would be an effective, total ban, which would not require the paraphernalia of enforcement that the Bill will bring. It was Lord Cullen's preferred option. It is feasible, practical and would achieve our main purpose—to stop a repetition of Dunblane. It would not require enormous sums to be spent in compensation and it would mean that there was no point in criminals raiding gun clubs or the homes of gun owners, because one part would be kept at the club and one in the home and never the twain shall meet. That seems to me to be a more effective way to stop the theft of guns, the ramraiding of gun clubs or criminal or terrorist attacks on gun clubs.
Under a requirement to dismantle, if whole guns were found outside gun clubs, they would be, ipso facto, illegal. Such a provision would allow the sport to continue. I see little point in persecuting people. We are turning gun enthusiasts into an alienated, paranoid and persecuted minority. They are upset and almost hysterical about the way in which they have been treated. The Bill will not foster a culture of co-operation among gun owners. If we can allow the sport to continue, we should do so.
When the point about dismantling was put previously, it was met by the Government—I should say the then Government, because things improve all the time as life goes on—with many specious arguments. First, they said that not all guns could be dismantled. The answer to that is simple. If some cannot—I think that all can—they should be specifically banned. It is as easy as that.
Secondly, it was argued that people could fabricate parts of guns. That is true, but they could also fabricate whole guns. So that really is no answer. If dismantling were the basis of legislation, possession of a whole gun would be illegal. Then it was argued that dismantling was not foolproof. What is foolproof? The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 is not foolproof. What kind of breeding ground is the creation of a paranoid minority who fear that they are being deprived wrongly of their guns? No system is absolutely foolproof.
All those objections are true, but all are trivial and unimportant. If there is a will to legislate by the more rational means of requiring dismantling, we should use it.

Mr. Barnes: The answers given by the previous Government on dismantling were terribly thin. Not only were they incorrect, as my hon. Friend has shown, but they did not respond to the argument being put. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will respond to the points made by my hon. Friend. He knows that I support them. They are due serious answers before we vote.

Mr. Mitchell: The arguments were very thin. Thin is my description of arguments with which I disagree. Factually they were thin, too. The underlying concern was not to have dismantling, because the then Government wanted legislation. They wanted to show that they were doing something. They wanted to hang on to seats in Scotland. There was a threat in Scotland and they wanted to conciliate opinion there and show that they were responding to concerns. That is why they refused to listen to the argument. They had to have something to show to the Scottish electorate. That did not do them any good.
Now that that pressure is gone, we have an opportunity to rethink and take a cooler look. A cooler look would suggest looking again at what Lord Cullen proposed and asking ourselves whether that is the more effective way of dealing with the situation. Can we afford the scale of compensation? Should the Bill destroy the sport? Will the total ban work any better? I do not think that that is likely. We should answer such questions. It is very difficult to defeat totally the ingenuity of lunatics, as Hamilton was. We need a rational approach to the problem, to stop whole weapons being available among the public. Gun clubs and licensed, controlled premises should be the only places where guns can be reassembled.
I am in something of a quandary about to how to vote, because I am in the unusual position of receiving a three-line Whip on a free vote. I shall sit here and hope that some kind of telepathy from the Whips Office tells me what to do. I have not yet got one of those little bleepers. When they go off in the middle of debates, some of my hon. Friends look happy—even ecstatic.
If I were approaching such legislation, I would not start from this point.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), for whom I have had a healthy regard, even since I have been reading his wife's columns in The Times on Saturdays, where she gives away all his personal secrets. He said that he knew very little about gun clubs, but he made an excellent speech on sensible, intelligent, well-thought-out and logical grounds. He also made a very good philosophical case against the Bill. That is not a party viewpoint; I think that he made a very good speech.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who has just left the Chamber, on a first-class maiden speech. It is very difficult to make maiden speeches and I know that hon. Members often have butterflies in their stomachs. He paid due tribute to his predecessors and his constituency.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) made an excellent speech. I wish that I could make such a cogent speech without notes. I knew his predecessor well, because we served on the Select Committee on Employment together. He was a good man, who represented his constituents well. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue in the same vein. If I could just counsel him, although they may be grimy, he should see the streets of Manchester, Blackley as the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom. He should not be afraid to say that, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If the good burghers of Blackley have returned him to the House, he should not be afraid to stand up to say that it is the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom.
I regret to say that I find the Bill small-minded, mean and populist. I do not believe it will be good legislation, which is why I oppose it. My colleague on the Front Bench, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), will remember that I was unhappy about the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which I considered to be similarly ill advised, but the Bill goes further and is far worse than that.
I have probably done more pistol shooting than most hon. Members, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I was paid to do it; it was not a sport, but something which I had to do in my working hours. Although I quite enjoyed it in those working hours, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to spend Saturday afternoons firing a pistol. Thousands of people, however, wish to spend their leisure hours firing pistols on ranges. They do no harm to anyone and they do not damage the country. They are perfectly law abiding and I would far rather that they did that than ran riot around our football grounds.
One must ask why the Bill proposes a ban on pistol shooting. First, it is a populist reaction to the ghastly tragedy of Dunblane. We all say that it was a tragedy, but we all truly believe that what happened at Dunblane was quite awful. It does not, however, justify the Bill.
The Home Secretary said that the Bill was designed to protect the public, but I do not follow the logic of that. A more august person than I referred to cricket bats, which was a reasonable reference to make, and the banning of motor cars has also been discussed. I wish that hon. Members would think about the "ingenuity of lunatics", to which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has already referred. There was a ghastly case recently of a man who


went to the home of his estranged wife and poured petrol through the letterbox, killing his sister-in-law and her three children. A couple of gallons of petrol can do just as much harm as a pistol, and Thomas Hamilton would have found that out quickly enough. It is pathetic to ban pistols when there are so many ways in which to harm others.
Of course I accept that the licensing procedures should be sorted out, because they operate badly. I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, North that it was ill advised to issue a gun licence to Hamilton. That does not mean that we should stop thousands of law-abiding citizens from enjoying a sport. Cullen made some sensible recommendations and I urge those on the Government Front Bench to re-examine them carefully.
The second reason for the ban on pistols is the urge of some Members on the Government Benches to place restrictions on people. They are acting in a prescriptive and regulatory manner. It is the sign of a nanny Government. They are interested not in people's freedom, but in restricting what they may do.
I do not want to shoot, but it is sad that Labour Members, and possibly some of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches say, " I don't want to shoot, so you can't either." That is an authoritarian and unnecessary response. One might say the same thing about boxing. I do not wish to box, and many people are injured boxing, but many people came off the streets of the east end because of boxing clubs. They benefited from that by learning to fight in the clubs rather than beating each other up on the streets. Some people might still say, however, that one should ban boxing because it is so awful.
Some might argue that one should ban rugby football, union or league, because players break their necks. I know that many Labour Members, including some who agree with my argument, would ban hunting. I may not wish to hunt, but perfectly law-abiding people do so. They do not harm society and we should not ban their activity.
It has been said that tonight's Division will be a free vote. It may be a free vote, and I am sure that some Labour Members will vote—on a three-line whip—according to their consciences, but the political correctness that we have heard depressingly often in the speeches of Labour Members will reign, and there is no question but that the Bill will be passed. In the new Labour party, political correctness is reigning.
The 2002 Commonwealth games have already been mentioned, and I hope that they will be held in Manchester. However, those who are optimistic about Britain being considered for future Olympic games should think hard about the Bill. We would not be happy travelling to Olympic games in which we could not participate—sports such as the 100 m race or equestrian events. We would not support a bid to host games by a country that did not allow us to participate in a sport.

Mrs. McGuire: Can the hon. Gentleman name any other Olympic sport that must be regulated by police?

Mr. Robathan: That is a very interesting question, of which I should have liked to have notice. I suspect, however, that the hon. Lady will find that various so-called self-defence clubs, such as judo clubs, require

regulation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I certainly suspect that the use of sabres in fencing requires regulation. The hon. Lady is new to the House, and I do not think that her question is particularly relevant. Many sports require regulation, such as driving, which certainly requires police regulation. It may not be an Olympic sport, but it is a world sport.
The Government propose, most extraordinarily of all, that citizens of other countries should be able to walk our streets and fire their weapons, whereas British citizens will not be allowed to do so. That is a most extraordinary suggestion. Hon. Members have already mentioned disabled shooters. I will not revisit that issue, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
The hon. Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who made an excellent maiden speech, asked whether the legislation will work, and said that that would be the test. The obvious answer is that it will not work, because it will not reduce the accessibility of handguns. The Bill will have a negligible impact on handgun accessibility. The hon. Member for Stockton, North said that there are perhaps 4 million firearms in the United Kingdom, and the police estimate that there are between 1 million and 4 million illegal firearms. How much more worrying are those weapons than those owned by law-abiding people who wish to practise their sport on a Saturday afternoon?
Much has been made in the debate about small-bore pistols, and the Home Secretary said that the SAS is armed with. 22 weapons. I spent 15 years in the Army, and I can assure him that, should it be necessary to kill someone, we issue our armed forces with heavy-calibre weapons, because they have a longer range and a greater penetrating capability. The 9 mm weapon, which Thomas Hamilton used in Dunblane, is the standard-issue weapon for the British Army.
The legislation is small-minded, petty and indicative of a nanny state, and I regret it very much. I welcome the Home Secretary's comments on sorting out the violence on our streets that is committed with or without illegal firearms and pistols. The Bill, however, will not sort out that violence and has nothing to do with such violence. The Bill will only destroy the sport of law-abiding people who wish to do something that does not harm anyone. Simply because hon. Members do not wish to fire pistols on Saturday afternoons, that does not mean that we should destroy the sport for others. The Bill is a profoundly bad bit of legislation, and the House would be very unwise to approve it.

Mr. Anthony Colman: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I should like to start by congratulating hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Angela Smith), for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) and for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I also commend the tremendous work done by those in the Gun Control Network, particularly Mrs. Marshall-Andrews. As a local government leader, I led the movement within London borough councils to pass resolutions proposing a total handgun ban, which were adopted by UK local government associations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Medway mentioned a previous Conservative Member for Harrow, West, but, of course, another former Conservative Member broke with his party on the issue of handguns—David Mellor. I have before me a copy of the speech he made on 18 November 1996. It makes good reading and I agree with every word he spoke that evening.
Hon. Members may not know that, at the general election, there was a Sportsmen's Alliance candidate, Mr. Mike Yardley, standing against David Mellor and me in Putney. His sole manifesto pledge was to oppose what David Mellor and I both wanted—a total ban on handguns. Mr. Yardley called for a national march down Putney high street to show the strength of feeling on the issue; there were signs all along the A3 and 10,000 people were expected. I have to inform the House that, in fact, 75 people turned up. They were outnumbered by the police, of whom there were 78. A further 140 police officers were standing by as back-up, but they were obviously not needed.
I remind the House of the deplorable scenes at the Putney count, which were led by the Sportsmen's Alliance candidate along with Sir James Goldsmith. I know that Sir James is now seriously ill, but I would hope that Mr. Yardley has reconsidered his actions and realised that they were not that which is expected in this country. Hon. Members might ask how many votes Mr. Yardley got—the answer is 90, out of an electorate of 60,000. There are some 150 shooters in Putney, who between them own about 350 handguns, of which 50 are. 22 calibre. As the Putney police remarked to me this morning, the public are clearly in favour of a total ban on handguns as proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Gray: As the hon. Gentleman is making such extensive use of statistics on shooters, does he recall the rally in Trafalgar square, at which tens of thousands of people turned up to support the shooters' cause? How does that fit in with his use of minute statistics on rallies?

Mr. Colman: All I can suggest is that the debate that followed in the press and in the House convinced the other 9,925 that their cause was not one to back. I confirm that only 75 people turned up in Putney high street.

Mr. Robathan: Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that the role of this House, among others, is to defend the rights of minorities?

Mr. Colman: I do indeed. The minority exercised their right to hold their march in Putney and those 75 people were extremely well protected by the 78 police officers.
I am against the alternative of storing handguns at gun clubs, as are the police. I have a personal reason for that. Some years ago, my brother Ronald Colman, a police constable in King's Lynn, was called out after a break-in at a local gun club armoury and he cornered the criminals in the local sports pavilion. He did not call for back-up, although he should have done, and found himself looking down the barrel of a. 22 gun. I remind hon. Members that a. 22 can kill at a range of more than two miles and he was staring at the gun from a distance of 10 ft. He nevertheless went in unarmed and disarmed the two criminals. He was subsequently awarded the British Empire Medal and I am proud of my brother for what he did that day.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—we must not hang on; we must go forward with this Bill.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly tonight—all the more so because I am conscious of the fact that it is only a couple of weeks since I made my maiden speech. In the short time available to me, I wish to pick up on three points that I thought were of some importance while listening to the debate. I shall run through them in explaining why I oppose the Bill.
Leaving aside the earlier legislation—which I would not have been able to support—and focusing only on the ban, the first point that struck me about the Bill was the Home Secretary's inability to provide any rational or valid argument for why. 22 weapons should be included in the ban. I listened to him carefully and asked him at the outset whether he could produce some Home Office statistics to back up the use of. 22 weapons in the commission of crime. No such statistics exist. Anecdotal evidence, some of which I derived from my experience as a barrister doing criminal cases, is that their use by organised criminals is virtually non-existent.
I accept that. 22s may have been used on occasion in cases of domestic violence, but a range of weapons is available, from the kitchen knife downwards, all of which weapons are impossible to legislate against. Anyone who applied a moment's thought to the matter would realise that it would be impossible to do so.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is being so dismissive of the logic of others that I wonder whether he would examine his own logic. Will he explain how his collection of information and analysis was derived during his practice in the courts?

Mr. Grieve: The Minister has been unable to produce any Home Office statistics—

Mr. Michael: Answer the question.

Mr. Grieve: I will come to it. I can talk with my colleagues—[Interruption.] Yes, I can. It is one of the advantages of people coming to this House from a wide range of professional backgrounds. The Minister is flippant to dismiss that. We, at least, have the opportunity to talk among ourselves and we hear about whether and what weapons have been used. In my early years of practice going around the courts in London and the south-east, and whether I was having breakfast in the Bar mess or sitting in a court, I never came across an instance of a. 22 used in the way suggested. That is all that I can say to the Minister and the House. As the Minister cannot come up with any better information, he should not gainsay my point of view.
Secondly, I do not understand how the exception under the section 5 licence will work. I very much hope that the Minister will explain whether the exemption will apply only to foreigners coming to this country to participate in games, or whether it will also apply to any British citizen wishing to participate in those games and wishing to have access to a. 22 pistol, if necessary, by bringing it in from abroad. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary and


detected a note of hesitation on that point. I should be grateful if the matter could be clarified before the end of the debate.
We will be left with one of two positions. The first is that an exception is made to allow a British—or English, Scottish or Welsh—team to participate in games in this country, notwithstanding the fact that they have been refused access to pistols for training purposes, in which case the ludicrous nature of the Bill will become apparent. Alternatively, the Home Secretary does not intend to allow the aborigines the rights that he will grant to people coming into this country, in which case—and leaving aside the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights—he will find that his susceptibility to judicial review will make the life of his predecessor in that respect pale into insignificance. I hope that those points will be dealt with before the debate is concluded.
I want to make a final point. It has been touched on occasionally, but generally hon. Members have skated away from it. Gun clubs and shooting clubs were mainly set up in the late 19th century and they had a civic role. That may no longer be a popular theme, but people who learned to shoot—initially mainly men—regarded it as a civic virtue. It was thought that people should learn how to shoot. Before the days of sex equality, it was regarded as a manly accomplishment.
It was also thought—this point has not been touched on, but should be—that people should learn how to shoot because that accomplishment might one day be used in the service of this country. We touched on that matter a little. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out that police officers make frequent use of the opportunities presented by shooting clubs to perfect their skills. Over the past 20 or 30 years, those virtues, as they used to be perceived, have been consistently denigrated by individuals who, for their own moral reasons—which I understand—regard such attitudes as archaic, militaristic and undesirable.
I have listened carefully to tonight's debate and much of the theme that I have picked up, particularly from the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), is that, leaving aside the practicalities of the matter, the House is being asked to make a moral statement. That moral statement requires us to say, "We do not like handguns; they must go."

Mrs. McGuire: I did not say that I do not like handguns and they must therefore go. Those of us who supported the ban on handguns did so because they kill, and in Dunblane 16 children and their teacher were killed by a handgun. It is not just that I do not like them; they have a lethal purpose.

Mr. Grieve: I fully understand the hon. Lady's point. I took careful note of her words when she said that all handguns should be removed from our society, so I hope that I was not misquoting or misrepresenting her.
The strangest irony is that, ever since the trend that is now culminating in the destruction of shooting clubs began, the level of violence with handguns and all forms of weaponry has been rising. I believe that the two are linked. The more we get down to selfish, individualistic

forms of society—[Interruption.] They are tolerated, because the House has never addressed the problem of how the culture of violence is foisted on our society. It has nothing whatever to do with gun clubs. That is precisely why, quite apart from resisting the Bill on a philosophical level, I am utterly convinced that it will have no bearing whatever on reducing the incidence of violence through the use of handguns. On the contrary; I am convinced that it will do the reverse. By destroying shooting clubs, which have served this country well by channelling that recreation and enthusiasm, we shall create more problems for ourselves. We disregard that at our peril.
I am a little distressed to note the reaction to what I hoped was an underlying point to commend to the House. It seems to be treated with a certain flippancy, which may be due to the fact that, as predicted earlier in this debate, the Chamber is now filling up with hon. Members who have not listened to previous speakers.

Mr. David Maclean: The Bill is unnecessary, unfair and unduly costly. If it becomes law, thousands of law-abiding citizens throughout the country will be deprived of their sport and pastime with no guarantee whatever that the public will be any safer.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said that whenever the state considers limiting the activities of its law-abiding citizens, it must have a compelling reason for doing so. The Government said tonight that they have. They believe that extending the ban imposed on higher calibre handguns by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 to. 22 pistols would increase public safety, yet they have produced no firm evidence or justification for that belief in this debate. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it is not a proportionate response.
Clearly, this is new Labour playing to the gallery. The Government do not care how many individual freedoms they trample on as they continue their process of apparently announcing a ban a day.
Of course, we accept that to curtail individual freedom is perfectly legitimate if it serves a good purpose, but the Bill serves no good purpose. That was powerfully pointed out in some excellent maiden speeches tonight. I have had the privilege of hearing quite a few maiden speeches in my time, but the crop that I heard today from both sides was particularly splendid.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on his maiden speech. I can also pay tribute to the wonderful Dyson vacuum cleaner, which I understand is made in his constituency. I can confirm that it is the only vacuum cleaner that picks up the dog hair from my springer and retrievers. Having used up many hoovers over the years, I can testify that that one works. It was good to hear about other features of my hon. Friend's excellent constituency.
In his maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) paid a good tribute to the many former Members who represented that composite constituency. He was right to say that, before rushing ahead, we should let the 1997 Act be implemented.
I congratulate all the Labour Members on their maiden speeches. I am pleased that all of them paid such generous tributes to their predecessors, whether they were Labour predecessors or, unfortunately, in too many cases, Conservative predecessors. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) made a good maiden speech. It is clear that he likes his constituency and he spoke with obvious sincerity. I must tell him that there was no single recommendation of the Firearms Consultative Committee relating to safety that was not implemented by the previous Government.
The hon. Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) also made excellent maiden speeches and were gracious about their constituencies and their predecessors.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made his retread maiden speech. I welcome the tribute that he paid to his predecessor. He was, however, highly critical of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I am sorry, but it is nonsense to suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend did not address the public safety question in his speech.
My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that we passed the 1997 Act, which has yet to be implemented in full. It was all about protecting the public. The measure proposed by the Government is not about public safety, it is about public opinion polls. It is not about the protection of the community, it is about political correctness.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). In his maiden speech, he showed particular knowledge of the Commonwealth games, and the House listened raptly to what he said. The House will respect his decision to abstain in the Division tonight, and understandably so.
If I may single out one Labour Member for special praise, it must be the other northern lad like myself, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). I congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. He paid generous and noble tributes to his predecessors, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman and Keith Mans. Of all the maiden speeches that I have heard over the years, I have not come across one in which a Member has spoken with such obvious affection for his constituency.
I have a particular affinity with what the hon. Gentleman said. He said that he had one feature that might possibly spoil his constituency—an animal rendering plant in Lancashire. I have the only other one in the far north of England, in Penrith. We tried to have it moved to Lancashire, to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but we were not successful.
The hon. Gentleman was extremely courageous to say in a maiden speech that he thought that his own side was going a bit too far in the Bill, and that in all conscience he would have to vote against it tonight. He will be respected on both sides of the House for taking that decision. I must tell him that, when I made my own maiden speech 14 years ago, I voted against the Government that evening on a matter relating to agriculture. The Government got their revenge because the then Minister of Agriculture, Michael Jopling, made me his PPS a few years later to shut me up. He did not entirely succeed.
We contend that the total ban proposed by the Government is unnecessary. The provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 will ensure that no

shooter can keep a handgun at home or carry it around in public. That is the crunch. All. 22 lower calibre pistols will be banned from general circulation. The owners of such weapons will be able to keep them only in a licensed gun club which the police are satisfied meet the highest security standards. Owners will never remove their pistols from the clubs, and the police will have to be informed if guns are taken outside clubs. Even then, the guns will have to be transported by a third party approved by the police. Those controls are rigorous—many people regarded them as excessive when the 1997 legislation was passed. Their purpose was to protect the public while allowing sports men and women to continue their pastime, although in a more limited and highly controlled way.
The fact is that, under the 1997 Act, another Thomas Hamilton or Michael Ryan would not be able to roam the streets carrying legally purchased and legally held handguns and commit indiscriminate murder. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) made that point very powerfully in his speech today—as he did in speaking against the Government in the latter part of last year and earlier this year. He has spoken with obvious sincerity on this issue for a long time, and he displays deep knowledge of his subject. He was correct to point out that the Government are obsessed with controlling legal weapons, which is distracting attention from attempts to crack down on the illegal weapons in circulation.
The House must also be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for exposing the humbug of the Labour party free vote tonight. I shall say no more about that at this stage. However, if the Minister of State tries to make great play of Labour's free vote on the legislation, we shall quote extensively from several Labour speeches. We shall point out that, although it is technically a free vote in the Lobby, there is a three-line whip on attendance for Labour Members. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North pointed out, they can read the semaphore as to how they must vote tonight.
Earlier today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said—as have many of our colleagues—that the 1997 Act has not yet been implemented. The Government should consider the effectiveness of that Act before blundering ahead with their costly proposals for a total ban, which are based not on hard evidence but on an erroneous assumption. The Government seem to have the misconstrued and rather woolly idea that if they ban law-abiding people from owning. 22 calibre firearms, somehow evil people will be denied the means of killing the innocent. The world is just not like that.
If the Government think that they can protect the innocent from psychopaths and evil killers by banning the implements that they use to carry out their dastardly deeds, the Government will find that they must introduce new legislation every week banning another inanimate object that evil people use to commit crimes. Why will the Government not listen to the pleas of their Back Benchers? The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has spoken consistently about firearms control. Tonight, he urged the Government to think the matter through. He advised them to re-examine Lord Cullen's comments before blundering ahead with new measures before the 1997 Act is implemented fully.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does my right hon. Friend recall the distinguished efforts of my predecessor,


Sir Cranley Onslow, on behalf of thousands of law-abiding shooters in Woking who think that last year's legislation was too hasty? Will he accept that thousands of people in the Woking and Bisley area believe that the legislation is hasty and punishes innocent sportsmen?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sir Cranley Onslow was a noble defender of the right of innocent people to hold firearms in properly controlled, strict conditions. The Bill goes much further than that by seeking to ban firearms that are held at gun clubs under strict conditions.

Mr. Colvin: My right hon. and hon. Friends have paid tribute to Sir Cranley Onslow—and rightly so—for his efforts on behalf of gun owners and for his work as a distinguished member of the council of the National Rifle Association. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute also to Sir Jerry Wiggin, who, in a similar role on the executive of the National Rifle Association and as head of the British Shooting Sports Council, did a great deal to make the House and the country more aware of the value of shooting?

Mr. Maclean: Of course I pay tribute to Sir Jerry Wiggin in exactly the same way. He has a long and distinguished record in defending those minority rights when properly and safely controlled.
To go forward with this draconian Bill without having clearly justified its need would be unfair and vindictive. It would kill off the Olympic sport of target pistol shooting in this country, ending for thousands of able-bodied and disabled law-abiding citizens alike a pastime that they may have enjoyed for many years. The British Paraplegic Shooting Association has said that the sport is as much a form of rehabilitation as it is a pastime for many disabled shooters. A total ban would mean that Britain would be no longer able to compete at Olympic or Commonwealth level at pistol target shooting events.
The controls under the 1997 Act are rigorous. When that measure was passing through the House, Labour Members argued that it was draconian. The controls that are available under it have not even been tried out. What is the rationale? What is the benefit that will be gained by such a draconian scheme other than a few snappy headlines and soundbites conjured up by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)?
We know that we are up against soundbite politics when even the new Minister for propaganda was out-soundbitten on this issue. Even when he was writing letters assuring constituents that
people such as yourself will still be able to own hand guns, but they must be kept safely under lock and key at properly controlled centres",
the then shadow Home Secretary was reading the latest opinion poll and focus group findings, and Labour party policy changed overnight. That happened behind closed doors over mineral water in smoke-free rooms in Islington.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) has observed that Labour's evidence to the Cullen inquiry was entirely at odds with its present policy. A total ban on handguns would also be expensive. The Government have failed to come up with any real justification for the Bill and they have not said from where the money is to come, or which other commitments or projects are to

suffer if the money is to be found. The Minister must come clean on that point. Warm words and rhetorical smokescreens have been the Labour party's approach to accountancy in councils throughout the land, but it will soon discover that that is no way to manage the affairs and finances of a nation.
I press the Government again to explain how and where they will find the £30 million-plus to compensate. 22 pistol shooters for their weapons and accessories. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has already said, we opted against compensation for gun clubs during the passage of what became the 1997 Act. That was legitimate and in line with long-established principles and precedents. We reached that decision because gun clubs and their members could transfer and shoot with smaller calibre pistols. They were not put entirely out of business.
The effect of the Bill, however, will be to force the great majority of gun clubs to close. A total ban will deprive clubs of the right to use their property. They will no longer be able to operate or exist as a result of legislation.
The Government must say whether they will revisit the idea of compensating clubs that will face instant closure when the Bill is enacted. I shall quote the line that was taken by the Home Secretary during a debate on what became the 1997 Act. He said that
where individuals or businesses lose their property or property rights as a result of legislation or decisions made under legislation … it is entirely proper that they should be compensated for that loss."—[Official Report, 18 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 804.]
With the Bill receiving its Second Reading, all those clubs that cannot convert to any other form of shooting—for example, rifle shooting—because they were purpose built as pistol clubs will lose their property rights because they will not be able to continue pistol shooting. Therefore, the principles enunciated by all Governments, and which the present Government claim that they will adhere to, mean that the question of compensation must be revisited.
The Opposition do not oppose rigorous gun control. On the contrary, we bequeathed to the Government some of the toughest restrictions on the ownership and possession of hand guns that are to be found anywhere in the world. We took action throughout our period of office when we thought it necessary, after due consideration, to tighten firearms law.
I note with interest that the Government are considering banning imitation guns. It was the previous Administration who, in 1982, brought imitation firearms within the same tight licensing scheme that applied to other forms of dangerous weapons.
We do not believe that the Government have given this matter due consideration. We do not believe either that the Government have advanced an adequate enough case to restrict the liberty of thousands of law-abiding. 22 pistol shooters. Nor do we believe that there is any need for a total ban. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, the Bill has the taint of self-righteousness about it. I therefore commend the reasoned amendment to the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The speech that we have just heard was a mixture of soundbite and poetry. The right hon. Member


for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) tried his best to mount a challenge to the Government's case, but failed. If individual freedoms are being trampled on in the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested at the beginning of his speech, they were being trampled on in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which he helped through the House. The difference is not one of principle. Tonight's debate is not a philosophical discussion. It is simply about whether we stick with the ban on 80 per cent. of handguns, under the present Act, or remove 100 per cent. of handguns, including the. 22 pistols, which are lethal and as portable and easily hidden as the larger-calibre handguns that are banned under the Act.
If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, we wait until the 1997 Act has been in place for some time before considering whether to ban. 22 handguns, confusion and uncertainty will prevail for the public and for shooters, and we shall in due course be faced with the second and higher cost of compensating shooters who have moved from higher-calibre handguns to. 22 handguns. That will be a waste of public money. It is better for us to decide now, and to have certainty, in the interests of shooters and the public.
May I put the right hon. Gentleman right on the Labour party's evidence to the Cullen inquiry? I have it here. In paragraph 18, we stated clearly:
In general, given the lethal nature of handguns, we see a strong case for banning them altogether.
It is as clear and simple as that. We did, of course, consider whether it was possible to protect the sport of shooting in the interests of those who had legitimately enjoyed it, but we concluded that that was not possible. That logic underlies the arguments that we have advanced over the past year, and the arguments that have led to our presenting the Bill.
We have heard a number of maiden speeches tonight, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that their quality has been extremely high—worryingly high, in some ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made a strong case for the needs of his constituency in a witty and effective speech. He brought to our attention the existence of the office of agent to the parliamentary rifle club: that sounds a curious animal, which will no doubt be sought out by a variety of people.
Having himself played a part in the campaigning work of the Gun Control Network, my hon. Friend paid tribute to his wife's work in chairing that group. I am happy to endorse his tribute. Campaigners since Dunblane have been characterised by restraint and common sense, rather than the hysteria that many of us expected might break out.
My hon. Friend was right to say that the basic question is, will the Bill work? I share his view that it will, that without the removal of. 22 handguns the existing law is flawed and that there is every danger that it will not work in protecting the public.
One of the most powerful speeches came from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), a Liberal Democrat who spoke from experience as a shooter. He paid tribute to the honest way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had introduced the Bill, and had responded to so many interventions. In a similar way, I pay tribute to the honesty and clarity with which the hon. Gentleman spoke. He said that he supported the Bill

with heartache and sadness, and described how he had handed in his own handgun after thinking through the logic suggested by Dunblane and subsequent events. His words spoke volumes in demonstrating and representing the decency of the vast majority of shooters who will, in general, accept the law of the land—albeit with regret—when the Bill is enacted.
Some of what has been said about shooters going underground is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman spoke for the decency of people who have taken part in the sport of shooting over the years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is clearly a new Member of great talent and generosity, as his tribute to his predecessor showed. He said that he intended to vote against the Bill, but I hope that he will reconsider. It is not necessary to maintain a constituency-specific reputation for idiosyncrasy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) arrived in the House with a distinguished record as a county councillor and, indeed, as chairman of Humberside police authority—a name which will now survive. His support for the Bill is invaluable.
It is a particular pleasure for me to welcome to the House my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) and to know that the confidence that we both showed in ending her employment as my research assistant on 1 May was well timed and completely justified. It was rather cheeky of her to get a majority of more than 13,000, but her cogent and effective speech demonstrated her powers of persuasion, and the two may not be totally unrelated.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made a confident contribution. We hope that he will grow into a fitting successor to Members of Parliament who have previously represented that area such as Wilberforce and Cobden. I wish that I could accept his comparison between the prohibition era in the United States and today's Bill, but I think that he is wrong in that comparison. He said that madmen cannot be stopped from committing murder by getting rid of guns. No, but one can reduce their access to guns and the Bill will reduce their access to. 22 pistols.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), although I disagree with his description of the Bill as distasteful. I wonder whether he would apply that description to the 1997 Act introduced by the Conservative Government.[Interruption.] Some hon. Members clearly would, but those hon. Members who have been absent most of the evening are even more vigorous in shouting at members of their own Front Bench than in shouting at Ministers.
I also pay tribute to the thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who had a difficult job in the House tonight. I was chairman of the finance committee of Cardiff city council when it bid for the Commonwealth games, so I know the work involved and the disappointment of defeat, and I therefore share all the more in the joy that the games will be coming to Manchester. His speech demonstrated that the issue is much more complex than Conservative Members have suggested. I commend the quality of his speech and I respect his reasons for abstaining tonight. He made clear his acceptance of the commitment and undertakings given by my right hon. Friend with regard to the games.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) rightly paid tribute to his predecessor, who was courageous and passionate in pressing for a ban on handguns. My hon. Friend's reference to his brother's experience as a policeman facing the barrel of a. 22 pistol was one of the many contributions to the debate which each in themselves could be conclusive. It was a telling point.
Some contributions were less convincing. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) thinks that practice as a barrister provides authoritative knowledge of low life, but he was unable to produce evidence and so became petulant.
My hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) suggested that we should allow part of a gun to be held at home and part at a club, as was referred to in Lord Cullen's recommendation. That point was considered fully during the debate on the 1997 Act and it was comprehensively dismissed. He also made the point that the loss of gun clubs would undermine police training because they would be unable to continue additional training in their own time.
The Association of Chief Police Officers and its equivalent body in Scotland were consulted in February on that point and neither suggested that loss of additional training in private time to top up police training in official time was likely to have the impact suggested. Training levels for police are not compromised by the Bill or by the 1997 Act. They are set by an ACPO joint standing committee on police use of firearms, taking advice from police firearms officers and experts in training.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made a rather odd speech in which he claimed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not argued that the measure is necessary and proportional to the need to protect the public. I found it odd because that is precisely what my right hon. Friend's speech was all about. It is a Government measure. We have shown leadership and clarity. We have put the safety of the public first. We challenged his Government to allow a free vote on the issue earlier this year and we have kept faith with that approach in government.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) seemed to be going through the motions in his contribution. He always looks distinguished but he made a weak and sometimes petty speech in which he tried to call in aid the European Court, which he clearly despises. Then he accused my right hon. Friend of being cynical, when he is simply being clear and honest with the House about the Bill's impact. The hon. Gentleman was against the 1997 Act, so it is hardly surprising that he opposes this Bill.
The hon. Gentleman asked why disabled shooters should be disadvantaged by the Bill. There is no attempt to disadvantage disabled shooters, but it is the considered view that the public's safety can be protected to the extent that we believe is necessary only by banning not 80 per cent. of handguns, as proposed by the Conservative party, but 100 per cent., as we propose.
It takes a talent for well-presented muddle to argue that a move from 80 per cent. to 100 per cent. is an issue of basic principle. To be frank, the case for retaining. 22 guns has not been made.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Member for Berwickupon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) accepted that the 1997 Act deals with compensation in the same way as this Bill does.[Interruption.] I simply say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Michael: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will be aware that. 22 pistols are widely available in France and can almost be obtained over the counter. They can be brought into this country without the slightest difficulty. The Minister does not pretend that there are any controls. Given that, what is the point of imposing a blanket ban in this country?

Mr. Michael: I thought that it would not be much of a contribution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly has a total lack of faith in Customs or any controls on our borders. It is untrue to say that people can wander into this country with guns. It is a problem that people do not obey the law, but that is no justification for allowing more. 22 handguns to be held legally. That argument is totally illogical.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) spoke from the heart, as he always does. I acknowledge the integrity and passion with which he pursues issues such as child protection. I endorse his tribute to the late Baroness Faithfull. I respect his views, and I know that he has thought hard and long about the issues that will come to a conclusion with the Bill. He was right to say that legislation after Hungerford was flawed and not totally logical. I sincerely believe that our reasons for introducing this Bill are soundly based and logical, and will increase the protection of the public.
I shall clarify the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North made about dates in respect of the ownership of. 22 weapons, because he was wrong. Under clause 2(4), the Bill gives the date of possession as 14 May 1997, which is the date of the Queen's Speech. However, for calculating market values we have used 16 October 1996. That will benefit claimants, because the value of guns may have fallen between October 1996 and May 1997.
My hon. Friend made some powerful points, but he is wrong on a number of them. He is certainly wrong about the electoral pressure on my right hon. Friend. I was present when he met the then Home Secretary, the then Scottish Secretary and the then shadow Scottish Secretary shortly after Dunblane. I remember the determination that informed our discussion then and later to do what is right: not to be rushed or swayed by emotion, but to use the period of the Cullen inquiry to tease out the right policies


for the future. We started out hoping that we could allow the sport of handguns to continue, but we were inexorably driven to the conclusion that we could not do so.

Mr. Maclean: Before the Minister sits down, will he address the compensation point that the shadow Home Secretary and I raised?

Mr. Michael: No, I answered those points during the debate on compensation on Monday. We will not go wider than the previous Government in compensating business. It is not logical or consistent, and we will not do so.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman should make up their minds what they want to do, because there are only a few minutes left.[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Michael: The shadow Home Secretary's intervention at this point is inappropriate. I have given way a number of times.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to rewrite history—particularly his own record—by pretending that the previous Government were tough on guns.
The contrast that we have seen in the House tonight is clear. Our task of responding to the heart-rending tragedy of Dunblane will not be complete until we complete the ban on handguns that we believe is necessary for the protection of the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) made a powerful speech, which was all the more powerful for being calm. Her contribution was emotional only in its sincerity. In its analysis of the choice that faces us tonight it was logical and clinical, and I can assure her and my other hon. Friends who have spoken that we shall complete that task.
Several hon. Members have said that damage is done only by weapons held legally. But 400 guns a year are stolen, and, once stolen, those guns are used illegally. That, above all, is the devastating statistic that leads us to commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 384.

Division No. 27]
[10 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)
Brady, Graham


Baker, Norman
Brazier, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bercow, John
Bruce, Ian(S Dorset)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Bruce, Malcolm(Gordon)


Blunt, Crispin
Burnett, John


Body, Sir Richard
Burns, Simon





Butterfill, John
Lansley, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Leigh, Edward


Cash, William
Letwin, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lewis, Dr Julian(New Forest E)


(Chipping Barnet)
Lidington, David


Chidgey, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter(Fareham)


Clappison, James
Loughton, Tim


Clark, Rt Hon Alan(Kensington)
Luff, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael(Rayleigh)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


(Rushcliffe)
MacKay, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Collins, Tim
Maclennan, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Madel, Sir David


Cook, Frank(Stockton N) 
Major, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Cotter, Brian
Maples, John


Cran, James
Mates, Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davis, Rt Hon David(Haltemprice)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Davies, Quentin
May, Mrs Theresa


(Grantham & Stamford)
Merchant, Piers


Dawson, Hilton
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
Oaten, Mark


Duncan Smith, Iain
Opik, Lembit


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Prior, David


Forth, Eric
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robathan, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam
Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)


Fraser, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion(Broxbourne)


Gale, Roger
Ross, William(E Lond'y)


Garnier, Edward
Rowe, Andrew(Faversham)


Gibb, Nick
Ruffley, David


Gill, Christopher
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
St Aubyn, Nick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Sanders, Adrian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gray, James
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Green, Damian
Shepherd, Richard(Aldridge)


Greenway, John
Simpson, Keith(Mid-Norfolk)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spring, Richard


Hammond, Philip
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Harris, Dr Evan
Steen, Anthony


Harvey, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Swayne, Desmond


Hayes, John
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heath, David(Somerton)
Taylor, Ian(Esher & Walton)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


(Old Bexley & Sidcup)
Taylor, Matthew


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
(Truro & St Austell)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Horam, John
Thompson, William


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Townend, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Jackson, Robert(Wantage)
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Bernard(N Essex)
Walter, Robert


Johnson Smith,
Wardle, Charles


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Wells, Bowen


King, Rt Hon Tom(Bridgwater)
Whittingdale, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilkinson, John






Willetts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin


Woodward, Shaun
and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Peter Ainsworth.


Young, Rt Hon Sir George





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)


Adams, Mrs Irene(Paisley N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coaker, Vernon


Allan, Richard(Shef'ld Hallam)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allen, Graham(Nottingham N)
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald(Swansea E)
Coleman, Iain


Anderson, Janet(Ros'dale)
(Hammersmith & Fulham)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Colman, Anthony(Putney)


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cook, Rt Hon Robin(Livingston)


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cox, Tom


Bayley, Hugh
Cranston, Ross


Beard, Nigel
Crausby, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, Mrs Ann(Keighley)


Begg, Miss Anne(Aberd'n S)
Cummings, John


Bell, Martin(Tatton)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart(Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim(Cov'try S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bennett, Andrew F
(Copeland)


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna


Bermingham, Gerald
(Perth)


Berry, Roger
Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare


Best, Harold
Dalyell, Tam


Betts, Clive
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Darvili, Keith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Edward(Kingston)


Blizzard, Robert
Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Ron(Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith(Withington)
Davis, Terry(B'ham Hodge H)


Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)
Dean, Ms Janet


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Brand, Dr Peter
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Dobbin, Jim


(Dunfermline E)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Donohoe, Brian H


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Russell(Dumfries)
Dowd, Jim


Browne, Desmond(Kilmarnock)
Drown, Ms Julia


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Ms Maria(L'pool Garston)


Burstow, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Butler, Christine
Efford, Clive


Byers, Stephen
Ellman, Ms Louise


Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Canavan, Dennis
Fearn, Ronnie


Caplin, Ivor
Fisher, Mark


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Ms Caroline


Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul


Chaytor, David
Follett, Ms Barbara


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David(S Shields)
Foster, Michael John(Worcester)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Foulkes, George


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Paul(Gillingham)
Galbraith, Sam


Clarke, Charles(Norwich S)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Eric(Midlothian)
Gardiner, Barry


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom(Coatbridge)
George, Bruce(Walsall S)





Gerrard, Neil
King, Andy(Rugby)


Gibson, Dr Ian
King, Miss Oona(Bethnal Green)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kingham, Tessa


Godman, Dr Norman A
Kirkwood, Archy


Godsiff, Roger
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Goggins, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Laxton, Bob


Gorrie, Donald
Lepper, David


Graham, Thomas
Leslie, Christopher


Grant, Bernie
Levitt, Tom


Griffiths, Ms Jane(Reading E)
Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)


Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)
Lewis, Terry(Worsley)


Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Grocott, Bruce
Linton, Martin


Grogan, John
Livingstone, Ken


Gunnell, John
Livsey, Richard


Hain, Peter
Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)


Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hall, Patrick(Bedford)
Lock, David


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Love, Andy


Hancock, Mike
McAllion, John


Hanson, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCabe, Stephen


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Healey, John
McCartney, Ian(Makerfield)


Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Hepburn, Stephen
McDonnell, John


Heppell, John
McFall, John


Hesford, Stephen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Hill, Keith
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
McLeish, Henry


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McMaster, Gordon


Home Robertson, John
McNulty, Tony


Hood, Jimmy
MacShane, Denis


Hoon, Geoffrey
McWalter, Tony


Hope, Philip
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Howarth, Alan(Newport E)
Mandelson, Peter


Howarth, George(Knowsley N)
Marek, Dr John


Howells, Dr Kim
Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury)


Hughes, Ms Beverley
Marshall, David(Shettleston)


(Stretford & Urmston)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)
Martlew, Eric


Humble, Mrs Joan
Maxton, John


Hurst, Alan
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hutton, John
Meale, Alan


Iddon, Brian
Merron, Ms Gillian


Illsley, Eric
Michael, Alan


Ingram, Adam
Michie, Mrs Ray(Argyll Bute)


Jackson, Ms Glenda(Hampst'd)
Milburn, Alan


Jackson, Mrs Helen(Hillsborough)
Miller, Andrew


Jamieson, David
Moffatt, Laura


Jenkins, Brian(Tamworth)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Johnson, Ms Melanie
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jones, Barry(Alyn & Deeside)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Ms Fiona(Newark)
Morris, Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Helen(Warrington N)
Morris, Rt Hon John(Aberavon)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Mountford, Ms Kali


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Mudie, George


Jones, Dr Lynne(Selly Oak)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)
Murphy, Dennis(Wansbeck)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Murphy, Paul(Torfaen)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Keen, Alan(Feltham)
Norris, Dan


Keen, Mrs Ann(Brentford)
O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)


Kemp, Fraser
O'Brien, William(Normanton)


Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)
O'Hara, Edward


Khabra, Piara S
Olner, Bill


Kidney, David
O'Neill, Martin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Organ, Mrs Diana






Osborne, Mrs Sandra
Spellar, John


Palmer, Dr Nick
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pearson, Ian
Stevenson, George


Perham, Ms Linda
Stewart, Ian(Eccles)


Pickthall, Colin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Stoate, Dr Howard


Plaskitt, James
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pollard, Kerry
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pond, Chris
Stuart, Mrs Gisela(Edgbaston)


Pope, Greg
Stunell, Andrew


Pound, Stephen
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)
Swinney, John


Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Prescott, Rt Hon John
(Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth R(Harrow W)


Radice, Giles
Timms, Stephen


Rammell, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Touhig, Don


Reid, Dr John(Hamilton N)
Trickett, Jon


Rendel, David
Truswell, Paul


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


(Hamilton S)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rogers, Allan
Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)


Rooker, Jeff
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rowlands, Ted
Walley, Ms Joan


Roy, Frank
Ward, Ms Claire


Ruane, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Watts, David



Welsh, Andrew


Russell, Ms Christine(Chester)
White, Brian


Ryan, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Alan


Savidge, Malcolm
Wicks, Malcolm


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sedgemore, Brian
(Swansea W)


Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Dr Alan W


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
(E Carmarthen)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Mrs Betty(Conwy)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wills, Michael


Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)
Winnick, David


Singh, Marsha
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Chris(Islington S)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wright, Dr Tony(Cannock)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wright, Tony(Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Ms Jacqui(Redditch)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. David Clelland and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly negativated.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 384, Noes 181.

Division No. 28]
[10.17 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Ms Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene(Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy


Allan, Richard(Shef'ld Hallam)
Atkins, Ms Charlotte


Allen, Graham(Nottingham N)
Banks, Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Janet(Ros'dale)
Battle, John





Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Beard, Nigel
(Copeland)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna


Begg, Miss Anne(Aberd'n S)
(Perth)


Bell, Martin(Tatton)
Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare


Bell, Stuart(Middlesbrough)
Dafis, Cynog


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F
Darting, Rt Hon Alistair


Benton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Bermingham, Gerald
Davey, Edward(Kingston)


Berry, Roger
Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)


Best, Harold
Davidson, Ian


Betts, Clive
Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)


Blackman, Mrs Liz
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Blizzard, Robert
Dean, Ms Janet


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Denham, John


Boateng, Paul
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Borrow, David
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Donohoe, Brian H


Brand, Dr Peter
Doran, Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Drown, Ms Julia


(Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick
Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)


(Newcastle E & Wallsend)
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Efford, Clive


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Ellman, Ms Louise


Buck, Ms Karen
Ennis, Jeff


Burgon, Colin
Etherington, Bill


Burstow, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Butler, Christine
Fearn, Ronnie


Byers, Stephen
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flint, Ms Caroline


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Follett, Ms Barbara


Casale, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foulkes, George


Chaytor, David
Fyfe, Maria


Chisholm, Malcolm
Galbraith, Sam


Clapham, Michael
Galloway, George


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Dr Lynda
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gorrie, Donald


Coaker, Vernon
Graham, Thomas


Coffey, Ms Ann
Grant, Bernie


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)


Coleman, Iain
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


(Hammersmith & Fulham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Colman, Anthony (Putney)
Grocott, Bruce


Connarty, Michael
Grogan, John


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Gunnell, John


Cooper, Ms Yvette
Hain, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cousins, Jim
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cox, Tom
Hancock, Mike


Cranston, Ross
Hanson, David


Crausby, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Healey, John


Cummings, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hepburn, Stephen


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Heppell, John






Hesford, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McLeish, Henry


Hill, Keith
McMaster, Gordon


Hinchliffe, David
McNulty, Tony


Hodge, Ms Margaret
MacShane, Denis


Home Robertson, John
McWalter, Tony


Hood, Jimmy
McWilliam, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hope, Philip
Mallaber, Ms Judy


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mandelson, Peter


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hughes, Ms Beverley
Martlew, Eric


(Stretford& Urmston)
Maxton, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Meale, Alan


Humble, Mrs Joan
Merron, Ms Gillian


Hurst, Alan
Michael, Alun


Hutton, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Iddon, Brian
Milburn, Alan


Illsley, Eric
Miller, Andrew


Ingram, Adam
Moffatt, Laura


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jamieson, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Johnson, Ms Melanie
Morley, Elliot


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
Mountford, Ms Kali


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mudie, George


Jones, Ms Jenny
Mullin, Chris


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Murphy, Dennis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Norris, Dan


Keeble, Ms Sally
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
O'Hara, Edward


Kemp, Fraser
Olner, Bill


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
O'Neill, Martin


Khabra, Piara S
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kidney, David
Osborne, Mrs Sandra


Kilfoyle, Peter
Palmer, Dr Nick


King, Andy (Rugby)
Pearson, Ian


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kingham, Tessa
Pickthall, Colin


Kirkwood, Archy
Pike, Peter L


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Plaskitt, James


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pollard, Kerry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Pond, Chris


Laxton, Bob
Pope, Greg


Lepper, David
Pound, Stephen


Leslie, Christopher
Powell, Sir Raymond


Levitt, Tom
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Primarolo, Dawn


Linton, Martin
Prosser, Gwyn


Livingstone, Ken
Purchase, Ken


Livsey, Richard
Quinn, Lawrie


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Radice, Giles


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rammell, Bill


Lock, David
Rapson, Syd


Love, Andy
Raynsford, Nick


McAllion, John
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


McCabe, Stephen
Rendel, David


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Robertson, Rt Hon George


McDonagh, Ms Siobhain
(Hamilton S)


McDonnell, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McFall, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rogers, Allan


McIsaac, Ms Shona
Rooker, Jeff





Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rowlands, Ted
Timms, Stephen


Roy, Frank
Tipping, Paddy


Ruane, Chris
Todd, Mark


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Touhig, Don


Ryan, Ms Joan
Trickett, Jon


Savidge, Malcolm
Truswell, Paul


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vaz, Keith


Singh, Marsha
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Watts, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Welsh, Andrew


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
White, Brian


Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)
Whitehead, Alan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wicks, Malcolm


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Soley, Clive
(Swansea W)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Dr Alan W


Spellar, John
(E Carmarthen)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stevenson, George
Wills, Michael


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Winnick, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wise, Audrey


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wood, Mike


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Woolas, Phil


Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)
Worthington, Tony


Stunell, Andrew
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Swinney, John
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann



(Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. David Clelland.




NOES


Amess, David
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
(Rushcliffe)


Baker, Norman
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Collins, Tim


Barnes, Harry
Colvin, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bercow, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cotter, Brian


Blunt, Crispin
Cran, James


Body, Sir Richard
Curry, Rt Hon David


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davies, Quentin


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
(Grantham & Stamford)


Brady, Graham
Dawson, Hilton


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Breed, Colin
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, Nigel


Burnett, John
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill, John
Flight, Howard


Cann, Jamie
Forth, Eric


Cash, William
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


(Chipping Barnet)
Fox, Dr Liam


Chidgey, David
Fraser, Christopher


Chope, Christopher
Gale, Roger


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward






George, Andrew (St Ives)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gibb, Nick
Norman, Archie


Gill, Christopher
Oaten, Mark


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Opik, Lembit


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Page, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paice, James


Gray, James
Paterson, Owen


Green, Damian
Pickles, Eric


Greenway, John
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robathan, Andrew


Hague, Rt Hon William
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hammond, Philip
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Harris, Dr Evan
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Harvey, Nick
Ruffley, David


Hawkins, Nick
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hayes, John
St Aubyn, Nick


Heald, Oliver
Sanders, Adrian


Heath, David (Somerton)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


(Old Bexley & Sidcup)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hoey, Kate
Soames, Nicholas


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Horam, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Streeter, Gary


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Swayne, Desmond


Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Syms, Robert


Johnson Smith,
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Matthew


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
(Truro & St Austell)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lansley, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Letwin Edward
Thompson, William



Townend, John


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Tyler, Paul


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Loughton, Tim
Walter, Robert


Luff, Peter
Wardle, Charles


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maclennan, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Major, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Malins, Humfrey
Willis, Phil


Maples, John
Wilshire, David


Mates, Michael
Woodward, Shaun


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Yeo, Tim


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


May, Mrs Theresa



Merchant, Piers
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, Austin
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin


Moore, Michael
and


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Michael.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to that Act in the administrative expenses payable out of money so provided under any other enactment; and
(b) any sums required by the Secretary of State for paying compensation in respect of—

(i) small-calibre pistols the possession of which becomes unlawful as a result of that Act; or
(ii) equipment designed or adapted for use in connection with small-calibre pistols.— [Mrs. Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Lockerbie and Libyan Sanctions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly. There is an Adjournment debate, and an hon. Gentleman is attempting to address the House.

Mr. Dalyell: I refer the House to the Adjournment debate of 20 January 1992, column 153; to my initiation of a debate on the Arab world on 27 November 1992, column 1097 and the debate the following week initiated by Cyril Townsend; to the Adjournment debate of 12 April 1994, column 181; to the Adjournment debate for the summer of 20 July 1994, column 357; to the Scottish Grand Committee Adjournment debate of 13 December 1994, column 40; to the Adjournment debate of 1 February 1995, column 1056, which is the only occasion on which a Foreign Secretary—in that case, Douglas Hurd—has answered a Back-Bencher's Adjournment debate since the war; to the Scottish Grand Committee Adjournment debate of 14 June 1995, column 47; to the Adjournment debate of 29 November 1995, column 1308; to the Adjournment debate of 7 February 1996, column 443; to the Adjournment debate on WPC Yvonne Fletcher 8 May 1996, column 208; to the Adjournment debate of 24 July 1996, column 273; and to the Adjournment debate of 28 February 1997, column 598.
The previous Government's claim that the Lockerbie evidence could not be discussed for fear of jeopardising any future trial of the two Libyan accused is nonsense. When the indictments were announced in November 1991, the United States State Department gleefully released a so-called "fact sheet", which set out the evidence; and the contents of that sheet were widely reported by the press on both sides of the Atlantic and in subsequent books and television and radio programmes. Is not the real reason that the previous Government were so unwilling to discuss the evidence the fact that subsequent investigations by the media and others have found the claims in the "fact sheets" to be hugely flawed?
On the basis of the evidence that has so far come into the public domain, there are experienced members of the legal profession in Scotland—including Robert Black QC, professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh, and Peter Anderson of the distinguished solicitors Simpson Marwick, who represented Pan Am—who have come to the view that there is a grave risk that a trial of the two accused Libyans before a court applying Scots criminal law and procedure would collapse at the close of the case for the prosecution. That would happen as a result of the court sustaining a submission, on behalf of the accused, that there was no case for them to answer as the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, was insufficient in law to warrant a conviction, and hence to justify further continuation of the proceedings.
Even if the Crown has evidence filed away of which we know nothing, how credible is it likely to be, and how is it likely to be treated by a court after the passage of

eight and a half years? The greater the delay, the greater the damage to the Crown's case, on account of the dimming of memories and the possible death of key witnesses.
Let these issues be resolved by the setting up of an ad hoc tribunal—or, if not that, a trial conducted at The Hague, as closely as possible under Scottish rules of evidence, before a panel of judges presided over by a Scottish judge, if desired, and the case prosecuted by the Scottish Lord Advocate, if desired.
There are three main planks to the evidence. The first are documents from Frankfurt airport, which purport to show that an unaccompanied bag was transferred from an Air Malta flight to the doomed flight 103. Careful analysis by Mr. Denis Phipps, former head of security for British Airways and one of the country's foremost experts in aviation security, showed the documents to be wholly unreliable and incapable of supporting the conclusions claimed by the official Lockerbie investigation.
The second plank is the evidence of the Maltese shopkeeper Mr. Tony Gauci, who, it is claimed, recognised Abdel Basset Al Megrahi, one of the two Libyan accused, as the purchaser of the clothes that allegedly ended up wrapped around the bomb. Mr. Gauci's statements have been leaked to the media—Radio 4's "File on Four", among others—and they show categorically that he did not identify Al Megrahi, but someone much older and taller.
The third piece of evidence is the fragment of circuit board allegedly from the bomb's timing mechanism. It was traced to a Swiss company, Mebo, which, according to the fact sheets, had sold the entire batch of that type of timer to the Libyan intelligence service. Not only was the timer extremely impractical for use in an aircraft bomb, but Mr. Edwin Bollier, the head of Mebo, and his chief engineer, Mr. Ulrich Lumpart, have revealed that similar timers were also sold to the East German Stasi, which had close links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Command, the original suspects in the Lockerbie bombing. Mr. Bollier has never been allowed to examine the fragment allegedly used in the bomb.
I gave my hon. Friend the Minister notice of my questions as it would be quite improper to raise such complicated issues without giving his Department notice. Is it not time to review the decision on Bollier and Lumpart? Mr. Alastair Duff, the defence lawyer of the court solicitors acting for the two suspects, asks that the Crown considers releasing to him at this stage details of the evidence against the two suspects, such as names and addresses of potential witnesses; copies of Crown productions, including forensic and other expert reports; and other relevant information, so that he can investigate the Crown case and prepare his clients' defence. Could that be done?
Is it not time to consider the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in the investigation? It provided the crucial intelligence that helped to link the timing device to Libya. During the 1980s, the agency ran one of its biggest ever covert programmes to destabilise the Gaddafi regime. One of the key players was Oliver North. Another was Vincent Cannistraro, who later headed the CIA's Lockerbie intelligence investigation. Why has Mr. Cannistraro's role not been challenged, when his previous role is a matter of undisputed fact?
Should not the Government also consider the role of the four key forensic experts in the Lockerbie cases—Dr. Thomas Hayes and Mr. Allen Feraday of the Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment, and James T. Thurman and David Williams of the FBI? All those men have given highly dubious evidence in previous cases. Dr. Hayes was part of the forensic team who convicted the Maguire Seven, and whose misdemeanours were exposed by the May inquiry. Mr. Feraday came in for fierce criticism by the judge in the successful appeal of Mr. John Berry in September 1993. The recent investigation into the FBI forensic laboratory by the US justice department's office of the inspector general recommended that both Mr. Thurman and Mr. Williams should be removed from their positions.
What of the drug finds among the crash debris at Lockerbie? A number of witnesses found substantial quantities of drugs, including heroin, yet were warned not to speak, and the official line remained that no drugs were found. One of the witnesses confided in the Rev. John Mosey, who lost his daughter in the bombing. Mr. Mosey passed on the information to a very senior Scottish police officer at the Lockerbie fatal accident inquiry in 1991 and the officer assured him that the witness would be visited by the police. Why did that visit never take place?
In view of the fact that a youth was charged with looting from the site of the disaster, and tried and sentenced to a period of custody, would the Foreign Office care to ascertain why US officials who removed a case from the disaster site without the knowledge, permission or authorisation of the chief constable were not charged with a similar offence? Would the Foreign Office talk to Dr. David Fieldhouse, who was on the site, counted the bodies, and who—for heaven's sake—was the police surgeon, with 14 years' experience, at the time of the Bradford fire, the major disaster before Lockerbie?
On another tack, this matter is important not only because the relatives want to know the truth. Frankly, it is in our British national interest. Kevin Boyle, the chairman of the British-Libyan business group, tells me that, in a market traditionally dominated by British skill, technology and business, the relative success of our European competitors and our relative lack of success is particularly galling.
Within the limits of UN sanctions, Libya offers tremendous opportunities for British companies. The world's largest civil engineering project—the great man-made river project—is in Libya. The proposed Maghreb railway could offer UK companies possibilities even greater than those presented by the channel tunnel, and there still remain vast reserves of oil and gas yet to be fully realised.
Unless the Government's policy towards the UK's outstanding problems between Britain and Libya becomes somewhat flexible, Britain's participation in this market will shrink or, worse, simply disappear. There is already a partial ban on UK companies allowed to tender for phase three of the great man-made river project, on account of an obstructive visa policy that no other European nation implements. This fact alone has, we know, cost us at least £100 million in lost contracts in 1996. We believe that the real situation is worse.
An increasing reluctance by the Libyans to do business with UK firms, and a halt in the issuing of letters of credit, has caused severe hardship to UK firms, culminating in

one company going into receivership. There are and there will be other casualties and, in most cases, it will be European firms who benefit from a British demise.
We understand that there are substantial political considerations, but surely, after eight years of sanctions, the only losers have been the ordinary Libyan people, British business, British workers and, of course, the families of the victims of the Lockerbie air disaster.
I have given notice to the Foreign Office of a matter that is not their direct responsibility. Much of the trouble may have started with the dreadful murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, and I have sent the Foreign Office the videos made by Fulcrum Productions. If they are to be dismissed, one assumes that George Styles—the senior ballistics expert of the British Army—does not know what he is talking about on the question of the angles of bullets going into bodies.
One also assumes that Professor Thomas—a friend of mine—does not understand the physiology of what happens when bullets go into bodies; except that he was the senior consultant surgeon at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast.
Above all, it assumes that Bernard Knight, the Home Office pathologist for 25 years, who was considered sufficiently responsible to be put in charge of the Cromwell street investigation, does not understand the pathology of what happened. All those people have said that WPC Fletcher could not have been shot from the window from which the authorities claim she was shot.
My conviction is that, within hours of Pan Am 103 shattering the Scottish countryside, the highest reaches of the American and British Governments had a pretty good idea exactly what happened. When I speak of the highest reaches, I am referring to Lawrence Eagleburger, Margaret Thatcher and Sir Charles Powell. The Americans then asked Mrs. Thatcher to play Lockerbie low key, and she did. The Lord Advocate of the day was in no position to take on the Prime Minister, least of all that Prime Minister. I trust that a Labour Government will confront the Americans and come clean—if not tonight, at least soon.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): May I say, without any intention to flatter, that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has a well-deserved reputation for personal courtesy, which is matched only by his diligence in pursuing the issues he takes up. I thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of at least some of the issues that he raised this evening. It is important to place on record, for him and for those listening to the debate in the Chamber and more widely, his tenacity over a long period. Many people are not sure that they have received definitive answers on the issue.
I well remember when, just before Christmas 1988, the first news reports began to come in about a plane disappearing. Eventually the full scale of the tragedy that took place over Lockerbie became apparent. What happened there was an outrage perpetrated by evil people. On that, the whole House would be at one.
Even after the time that has passed, I place on record my deep sympathy for those who lost family on that night. I also pay tribute to all those who assisted in and around


Lockerbie on the night of the disaster and on the days following. I am conscious that the scale of the operation, from the sensitive matter of how to deal with the deceased and their distraught relatives to the collection of the debris from the aircraft, was on a scale well beyond any disaster that we have ever experienced in this country. I recognise, too, the work done by the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, who conducted the investigation.
I understand the frustration of the bereaved relatives, who have not only had to cope with their private loss, but whose grieving process has been made more difficult by their uncertainty about the significance of the evidence and the lack of progress. Some eight and a half years on, we seem no nearer to holding a trial of those accused of the bombing than when the Lord Advocate announced the issue of warrants against the two Libyan intelligence officers in November 1991.
It is only five and a half weeks since the Government were elected. No one can come to the issue entirely fresh, but I and my colleagues in the Foreign Office and the Scottish legal offices approach it with a freshness of mind, not with preconceived notions. We are new to the scale of the detail involved. I know that my hon. Friend understands that he is ambitious in his expectations of Ministers' capacities. We must master a difficult brief that is spread over the eight and a half years since the Lockerbie disaster.
I stress that Lockerbie is not, and cannot be, an issue of low or no priority to this Government. It is an important issue which we shall continue to visit. In the coming weeks, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers will give the matter the considered attention it rightly deserves, and, together with the Lord Advocate, will consider the best way of handling its international implications.
However, I underline the fact that I am not here tonight to raise expectations that this Government's views will differ from those of the last Government, because I think that it would be unfair to raise people's hopes at this stage. The Government are well aware that the Scottish petition warrants were obtained only after the most extensive criminal investigation known in this country. Evidence amassed from that investigation enabled the then Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie—I take account of my hon. Friend's comments—to seek the issue of petition warrants for the arrest of the two Libyans accused.
The then Lord Advocate, together with his two successors, concluded that the evidence was sufficient to justify the obtaining of, and insistence upon, those petition warrants. I confirm that my noble and learned Friend, the present Lord Advocate, has been fully briefed about the evidence forming the factual background to the petition warrants. He is also of the view that the evidence is sufficient to justify the proceedings that have been instituted against the two Libyans accused.
My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that some people may have reservations about the sufficiency of the evidence against the two Libyans accused. Such reservations are entirely understandable when those who attempt to assess its sufficiency are not privy to the totality of that evidence. I know that this is a matter of frustration to the relatives, but the prosecuting and investigating authorities have been very careful not to

disclose details of the evidence in the case while criminal proceedings are pending, because of the threat that that could present to any criminal trial of the two accused.
The Lord Advocate is the appropriate person to assess the sufficiency of this case, and, as I have said, no fewer than four Lords Advocate have assessed the case. The present Lord Advocate certainly does not fear the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and he does not allow his judgment to be affected.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate also remains of the view that the Lockerbie investigation should not be regarded as closed. Anyone with any evidence relevant to the inquiry should make it available to the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary. My hon. Friend has raised several detailed points, and I do not think that it will assist him or the House if I try to respond to them tonight. I shall re-examine his points in detail, as I do not want to appear to dismiss them without examining them properly.
My hon. Friend described the delay in bringing this matter to trial as quite unacceptable. That delay has been occasioned by the Libyan authorities' failure to make the two accused available for trial in Scotland or in the United States—as required not by this country, but by the United Nations Security Council sanctions.
As long ago as September 1993, the Libyan authorities expressed their satisfaction with assurances given to them through the United Nations Secretary-General concerning the fairness of trial in Scotland. Indeed, the Libyan authorities said at the time that it would encourage the two accused to surrender themselves for trial in Scotland.
The Libyan Government should therefore arrange for the surrender of their two nationals for trial in Scotland, which is the proper manner of determining guilt or innocence in respect of any crime committed in Scotland. Like my hon. Friend, I have faith in Scottish law and in the Scottish judicial process. It is not acceptable to allow the accused to dictate the terms and circumstances of their trial.
My hon. Friend asked the Government to accept what he believes to be a genuine Libyan offer regarding trial in a third country. The question for us is whether such an offer is genuine. The Libyan position is not as clear as some might suggest. The Libyans say that they support ideas for trial in a third country, but they seem to have a number of variants in mind.
In a recent approach to the US relatives—which is the same approach that they made to the Organisation of African Unity at the recent conference in Harare—they speak of three options, to which my hon. Friend also referred in his speech. They are a trial in a third and neutral country determined by the United Nations Security Council; a trial by Scottish judges at the International Court of Justice at The Hague in accordance with Scottish law; or a trial by a special criminal tribunal at ICJ headquarters.
There are other suggestions also. However, the Libyans always fall short of giving any explicit undertaking—I hope that hon. Members are listening carefully—that they will ensure the appearance of the accused at any such trial. Indeed, they argue against trial in Scotland or the United States by saying that they are powerless to send their nationals to either country.
One factor that we shall need to consider extremely carefully is the extent to which this professed inability to surrender the accused applies equally to other countries—third countries—where we are asked to establish a court. It seems that we are being asked to rely on the good will of the accused themselves to present themselves to a court where they have said that they are prepared to stand trial. We shall need to consider carefully, and we will, what weight to attach to the chances of their actually doing this.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of points that I shall at least place on record in the form of a partial response. He referred to Mr. Vincent Cannistraro and suggested that the investigation might have been manipulated effectively by Mr. Cannistraro, formerly of the CIA. The investigation proceeded on the same basis as any other criminal inquiry—that is, by interviewing witnesses and recovering evidence, albeit on an enormous scale. The notion that all these inquiries could be manipulated in such a way that a particular result would be arrived at is fantastic. It would be a fantastic coincidence or a fantastic conspiracy.
No fewer than four Lords Advocate and four chief constables would have had to be party to such an attempt to pervert the course of justice. I must place that on record, because serious implications follow on from the view that a conspiracy could have taken place.
My hon. Friend talked about a suitcase full of drugs at Lockerbie not being fully considered. He asked specifically why the witness who recovered those drugs was not interviewed. I am advised that no significant quantities of drugs were recovered in the course of the Lockerbie investigation. Only small users' quantities of cannabis were found.
My hon. Friend asked about the possibility of evidence being released to Mr. Alastair Duff of the defence lawyers. He asked whether this would not give them the opportunity to investigate and prepare their case. I am advised that that is not possible. The Lockerbie criminal investigation has throughout been conducted in the same manner as any criminal inquiry. In any other criminal case, details of the evidence to be led in proof of the charges are given to the defence once the accused has appeared before the court. There is no reason for departing from normal practice in the Lockerbie case.
I am conscious of the fact that this is the first opportunity that I have had to answer a debate on the issue before us. My hon. Friend has asked for details, and he requires answers. I know that tonight I cannot do justice to every query that he has raised. I can say with sincerity that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, other ministerial colleagues in the Department and I have entered into the question of Lockerbie with fresh minds and no preconceived notions. There has certainly been no attempt to cover up, if that has been the allegation in the past.
I shall ensure that the issues that my hon. Friend has raised during the debate and others will be considered properly. My ministerial colleagues and I intend to be fully briefed on the matter. Not one Minister, but all

concerned, should have proper knowledge, and that will be gained. We shall perhaps be in a position to answer his questions more fully.

Mr. Dalyell: May I make it clear that I would have wished to give my right hon. and hon. Friends more time to go into the complexities of the issue? The Minister will understand, however, that parliamentary life is such that it is not every day of the week that one secures an Adjournment debate. With 300 Labour Members trying to secure Adjournment debates, one must count oneself extremely lucky to get such a debate at all. Beggars cannot be choosers. I appreciate, of course, my hon. Friend's position.

Mr. Lloyd: I make no complaints about my hon. Friend using the mechanisms that Parliament gives us all as Members to pursue a case, and he has pursued the Lockerbie case for many years. I have no complaints about that. Perhaps I have the problems, however, and not him.
We have already received a number of representations from relatives in the case, along with those made by my hon. Friend. Generally, the Government have been asked to find a way to unblock the impasses with Libya, as my hon. Friend has done tonight. The motive of the relatives is to bring about the long-promised trial of the accused or to find some other way in which the evidence might be revealed, so that they might fully understand the case against the accused Libyans. I can understand that. I have tremendous personal sympathy with my hon. Friend's motives, along with those of the relatives. It would be premature, however, to say how we will address them.
I can assure my hon. Friend and the House, and all those concerned, that we shall take into consideration all the views that have been expressed to us since taking office. We shall give proper weight to those deliberations.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Before my hon. Friend the Minister resumes his place—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Does the hon. Member have the permission of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to intervene?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Grant: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister would consider having some sort of discussions with the Libyans for him to ascertain their position? He has stated that the Libyans were putting forward a number of proposals. I think that he said that the Libyans had three positions. I think that it is incumbent on my hon. Friend not to accept the propaganda that has gone on in the past but to speak to the Libyans, either through an intermediary or someone else, so that he can at least ascertain—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven O'clock.